Dawkins on Evolution

[sandorski]

There is no such thing as an atheist.

Per definition

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of deity

: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Everyone person on this planet believe in something good and or powerful, whether its God or themselves, Steve Jobs, or Darwin

Everyone has a deity

Incorrect. Try reading what you Post first.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah, silly me, i accused him of believing in exactly what he says he believes.

Now, what has he done? Head of the HGP i know of but that was an administrative job, it involved NOTHING that had anything to do with any research to do any more than a principal of a school of science is involved in the different sciences.

Collins did NO research what so ever in the HGP, none, zilch, nada.

Do a google on Dawkins +Research and you'll find more than you can read in one week.

Now add Krauss and Hitchens, they agree with Dawkins.

LOL, Dawkins research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Career_in_academia

From his own site:

University of California, Berkeley, assistant professor of zoology, 1967-69; Oxford University, Oxford, England, lecturer in zoology and fellow of New College, 1970-90, reader in zoology, 1990-95; Evolutionary biologist and the Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford University; Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in May, 2001.The Galaxy British Book Awards named him Author of the Year in 2006 for The God Delusion, and in 2008 his TV program 'The Genius of Charles Darwin' won Best Documentary Series at the British Broadcast Awards. He was listed as one of TIME Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2007.

He talks a great deal. What discoveries did he make? How to get a lot of money on the lecture circuit.

I've linked to the genome site which cites the scientific work Collins has done.

Dawkins discover any genes? Provide insight into biology itself? I mean hands on things scientific achievements.

Just what has he done increase the body of scientific knowledge, and writing books doesn't do it.

Collins goes, his background got what was considered an impossible task at the time finished ahead of schedule. And yes, he's done research.

He's done science. Dawkins talks a great deal. "The Greatest Show on Earth"

Seriously, I'm done with this. Find a room and you two go at it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is no such thing as an atheist.

Then it must be an absolute miracle that I'm posting in this thread, seeing as how I don't exist, according to you.

Per definition

Any time a person tries to argue that facts about reality can be determined strictly from the definitions of words, it is clear that that person hasn't the foggiest idea about that which he is speaking.

Everyone has a deity

I don't. Moreover, the more you insist that you know things about me which I know a priori are false, the more certain we can be that you are not a reliable judge of facts, and that there are flaws inherent in your worldview which lead you to believe things which are not true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

*Updated with reference links

I would like to argue this from a pure scientific angle as well.

Either this claim of yours is simply false, or you do not know what a "pure scientific angle" is.

While I agree that all living things evolve what I have yet to grasp is how the human/ape connection works.

Human beings have a common ancestor with other primates.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

It is my understanding that humans and apes are 99 percent alike in our DNA.

Chimpanzees, in particular.

However, that 1 percent makes up billions of mutations.

Citation needed.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_rates

If, as some have stated, that we evolved from apes then IMHO those billions of mutations would have taken millions of years and produced billions of offspring in various stages between man and ape.

Wrong. You think evolution proceeds like a ladder. It doesn't. Biological diversity branches off primary evolutionary lines like a tree or a bush.

There should be billions of fossils that have for instance,5 percent ape and 95 percent human, 37 percent ape and 63 percent human and so on. IN other words there should be millions or billions of missing links.

It is also very apparent that you have little to no understanding of fossilization.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

There should also be other species besides humans, perhaps a third branch, or fourth, or as many as the world could sustain.

Again, you think that modern humans evolved from modern apes, and you don't understand that in reality, humans and other modern apes are the branches that diverged from the common ancestor population.

I find it odd that only humans are so dominant as evolution, in theory does not work that way as it is supposed to be more balanced.

You really don't know the first thing about evolution.

but this again comes down to the religious discussion mentioned in my earlier post. With evolution man is dominant as we are the fittst. That makes us gods of the earth and possibly the known universe. Man is the deity.
Science can no more accept another being as its deity then I can accept mankind as mine.

Yeah, "pure scientific angle," my hairy primate ass.

 

[sandorski]

LOL, Dawkins research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Career_in_academia

From his own site:




He talks a great deal. What discoveries did he make? How to get a lot of money on the lecture circuit.

I've linked to the genome site which cites the scientific work Collins has done.

Dawkins discover any genes? Provide insight into biology itself? I mean hands on things scientific achievements.

Just what has he done increase the body of scientific knowledge, and writing books doesn't do it.

Collins goes, his background got what was considered an impossible task at the time finished ahead of schedule. And yes, he's done research.

He's done science. Dawkins talks a great deal. "The Greatest Show on Earth"

Seriously, I'm done with this. Find a room and you two go at it.

You're being silly. If you can't see Dawkins contribution to Science, it's only because you have moved the Goal Posts to avoid them.

 

[jonks]

There is no such thing as an atheist.

Per definition

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of deity

: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Everyone person on this planet believe in something good and or powerful, whether its God or themselves, Steve Jobs, or Darwin

Everyone has a deity

Take your logical fallacy and try again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Piecing together selective and uncommon definitions of words isn't a good way to make a point. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of a deity when deity is defined in its most common iteration, that of a supernatural being of some sort, and not when it is defined of a concept of a supreme good. But you know this.

Using your technique:

"gods" refers to the balcony seating in a theater, but I don't think that's who all those people pray to every Sunday. "Fish" can refer to newly admitted prisoners. Cannibal is defined as an animal that eats members of its own species. Does this mean that all people who eat fish are cannibals?

Try not to be this disingenuous in your "reasoning".

 

[Sclamoz]

I would like to argue this from a pure scientific angle as well. While I agree that all living things evolve what I have yet to grasp is how the human/ape connection works.

It is my understanding that humans and apes are 99 percent alike in our DNA. However, that 1 percent makes up billions of mutations. If, as some have stated, that we evolved from apes then IMHO those billions of mutations would have taken millions of years and produced billions of offspring in various stages between man and ape. There should be billions of fossils that have for instance,5 percent ape and 95 percent human, 37 percent ape and 63 percent human and so on. IN other words there should be millions or billions of missing links. There should also be other species besides humans, perhaps a third branch, or fourth, or as many as the world could sustain. I find it odd that only humans are so dominant as evolution, in theory does not work that way as it is supposed to be more balanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_boisei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_rhodesiensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._heidelbergensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

Why should there be billions of fossils? Finding a fossil is a relatively rare thing. Think about it, something that died hundreds of thousands of years ago has to have its remains covered up in a way to preserve them and then we have to dig it up. The chances of us finding intact fossils are pretty remote.

Also, could you explain why its odd only humans are dominant?

but this again comes down to the religious discussion mentioned in my earlier post. With evolution man is dominant as we are the fittest. That makes us gods of the earth and possibly the known universe. Man is the deity.
Science can no more accept another being as its deity then I can accept mankind as mine.

Being a dominant species doesn't make us god. We aren't the creators of the universe. We'll never know everything nor are we immortal. Humanity could go extinct tomorrow, it happens to species literal everyday. We are are biological machines who are born live out our lives and die.

And science doesn't object to god. If god existed in our universe and was observable then scientists would be studying him/her/it. That's all science really is, a systemic process of research/experiment to understand our universe. If scientists didn't take the time to do this you wouldn't be reading this on your computer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're being silly. If you can't see Dawkins contribution to Science, it's only because you have moved the Goal Posts to avoid them.

It's more about credibility in action. Dawkins talks a lot. He can't talk science without bringing up religion. That's what he does.

Stephen Hawking writes and pushes the intellectual envelope. Dawkins could expound on the science and that would be worthwhile, but what he does is gather like minded people and conflate two issues. For this he earns a lot of money and has quite a following. Not because of his skills as a scientist, but because he gives those religious people a punch in the nose.

I love reading about science. Watching Feynman's lectures was a treat. Going to Woods Hole and Cold Spring Harbor was wonderful. I realize that's not something that everyone can do, but I teach a good bit of science to my children. My wife is a molecular geneticist, doing active research and teaching as well. She says they don't have a chance, meaning between our two backgrounds, they will never get away from science.

What we don't do is say we are smart and people who go to churches are stupid. We aren't interested in being dicks about it.

Dawkins writes books. He either alienates or draws approval, but his scientific value is questionable. I've already taught my children more science than they could ever learn by listening to Dawkins.

Anyway he's an educated fool IMO. YMMV

 

[sandorski]

It's more about credibility in action. Dawkins talks a lot. He can't talk science without bringing up religion. That's what he does.

Stephen Hawking writes and pushes the intellectual envelope. Dawkins could expound on the science and that would be worthwhile, but what he does is gather like minded people and conflate two issues. For this he earns a lot of money and has quite a following. Not because of his skills as a scientist, but because he gives those religious people a punch in the nose.

I love reading about science. Watching Feynman's lectures was a treat. Going to Woods Hole and Cold Spring Harbor was wonderful. I realize that's not something that everyone can do, but I teach a good bit of science to my children. My wife is a molecular geneticist, doing active research and teaching as well. She says they don't have a chance, meaning between our two backgrounds, they will never get away from science.

What we don't do is say we are smart and people who go to churches are stupid. We aren't interested in being dicks about it.

Dawkins writes books. He either alienates or draws approval, but his scientific value is questionable. I've already taught my children more science than they could ever learn by listening to Dawkins.

Anyway he's an educated fool IMO. YMMV

Moving the Goal Posts it is then.

 

[Sclamoz]

It's more about credibility in action. Dawkins talks a lot. He can't talk science without bringing up religion. That's what he does.

Stephen Hawking writes and pushes the intellectual envelope. Dawkins could expound on the science and that would be worthwhile, but what he does is gather like minded people and conflate two issues. For this he earns a lot of money and has quite a following. Not because of his skills as a scientist, but because he gives those religious people a punch in the nose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Phenotype

Dawkins does write & speak on science based subjects. Speaking of conflating two issues what would call a evangelical geneticist who writes a book about the human genome called the language of god lectures about it? I don't see you to upset about that.


Whats funny is you just did the same thing to Dawkins that you accused him of doing to Collins in your last post!

I searched to find out about Dawkins objecting to Collins being appointed as head of the NIH when you brought him up(before complaining that people where discussing him later in the thread) and there is nothing on the internet about it that I can find, would you mind filling me in?

“Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century, but they are not particularly rare.—-There are some corresponding examples in the United States, for example Francis Collins, administrative head of the American branch of the official Human Genome Project.”

-Richard Dawkins

 

[0marTheZealot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Phenotype
“Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century, but they are not particularly rare.—-There are some corresponding examples in the United States, for example Francis Collins, administrative head of the American branch of the official Human Genome Project.”

-Richard Dawkins

That's probably because a lot of them aren't open about it. I've worked with dozens of scientists over my career and I'd say about 70-75% believed in God. It's only those people who are outspoken about their beliefs, like Collins and Dawkins, that get the press time. Usually, people just want to be left to their own.

 

[fskimospy]

That's probably because a lot of them aren't open about it. I've worked with dozens of scientists over my career and I'd say about 70-75% believed in God. It's only those people who are outspoken about their beliefs, like Collins and Dawkins, that get the press time. Usually, people just want to be left to their own.

Well according to a (relatively - 1996) recent study, about 60% of scientists either express disbelief or doubt in God. Take from that what you will.

In general the more education someone has the less likely they are to believe in god. This is particularly true in the hard sciences.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well according to a (relatively - 1996) recent study, about 60% of scientists either express disbelief or doubt in God. Take from that what you will.

In general the more education someone has the less likely they are to believe in god. This is particularly true in the hard sciences.

Ergo...smart people don't believe in God. Gotcha.

 

[fskimospy]

Ergo...smart people don't believe in God. Gotcha.

Yet again when confronted with one of your leaps into the conversation I'm just left saying 'huh'? I never said anything even remotely approaching 'smart people don't believe in god'. Some of the most brilliant people the earth has ever seen were deeply religious.

Regardless of that, everything I said in my post is a fact backed up by scientific polling. Are you attempting to dispute my assertion that higher levels of education are correlated with increasing atheism/agnosticism, particularly in the hard sciences?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yet again when confronted with one of your leaps into the conversation I'm just left saying 'huh'? I never said anything even remotely approaching 'smart people don't believe in god'. Some of the most brilliant people the earth has ever seen were deeply religious.

Regardless of that, everything I said in my post is a fact backed up by scientific polling. Are you attempting to dispute my assertion that higher levels of education are correlated with increasing atheism/agnosticism, particularly in the hard sciences?

I'm not disputing your assertion...I'm clarifying it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not disputing your assertion...I'm clarifying it.

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth.

Stop it. Bad Doc Savage Fan! BAD!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nope, you're putting words in my mouth.

Stop it. Bad Doc Savage Fan! BAD!

Lol...that's what I thought I was hearing. Sorry.

 

[Siddhartha]

This is all a religious discussion as this comes down to deities.

You either believe God is a deity or you believe man is.

Science in general wants to believe mankind can unlock the power of the universe and understand all things. Religion believe God holds the power of the universe and understand all things and that man will never have that role.

I for one, choose God, as I see my fellow man, although technologically better, just as morally bankrupt as he ever was. Millions of years of evolution have yet to correct that.

Why do people who believe in gods or religions insist on projecting their paradign on to everyone. Man is not god-like. Science is not a religion.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

There is no such thing as an atheist.

Per definition

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of deity

: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Everyone person on this planet believe in something good and or powerful, whether its God or themselves, Steve Jobs, or Darwin

Everyone has a deity

You are incredibly naive in your thinking of what the spectrum of human belief can be.

 

[mect]

Ergo...smart people don't believe in God. Gotcha.

No, you're not just clarifying anything. It is perfectly clear what he said. There is a correlation between education and belief in god. As education increases, the probability of someone believing in god decreases, especially in the sciences. There are, however, obvious outliers.

As to the arguement about Dawkins vs Collins, I don't see how the two even compare. Dawkins has 30 peer reviewed scientific papers. Collins, on the other hand, has around 400.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

LOL, Dawkins research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Career_in_academia

From his own site:




He talks a great deal. What discoveries did he make? How to get a lot of money on the lecture circuit.

I've linked to the genome site which cites the scientific work Collins has done.

Dawkins discover any genes? Provide insight into biology itself? I mean hands on things scientific achievements.

Just what has he done increase the body of scientific knowledge, and writing books doesn't do it.

Collins goes, his background got what was considered an impossible task at the time finished ahead of schedule. And yes, he's done research.

He's done science. Dawkins talks a great deal. "The Greatest Show on Earth"

Seriously, I'm done with this. Find a room and you two go at it.

Collins have never discovered any genes either, he's not the "father of the human genome" that he tries to say he is, no one but him has EVER said anything about it either, for good reason i might add.

I am so dissapointed in you, i asked you early on WHY what Dawkins said was wrong because it's a mere repetition of Collins own words.

Dawkins does talk a lot, he says such strange things as "there is probably no god" while Collins says "there definently is a god, the evidence is all around us but don't question it and ask for evidence for god because he requires none".

That was the original argument and you've spun it left right, all around and back again and STILL you have not said one word about that statement.

THAT statement was what Dawkins had a problem with and THAT statement is what every thinking scientist should have a problem with but you just... ignore what Dawkins said and prattle on like a pre teen girl on speed.

If you have nothing to say about that then why the fuck did you bring it up?

Collins is a twat, there are very very few people amongst the tens of thousands of people who are in the area that think differently. His support for "the Dawkins illusion" came after he realised that he had nothing to offer in a debate but "faith and belief" which has no place in science what so ever.

You are such a silly little twat, if i don't buy your belief in an unprovable god i must be in love with Dawkins and get a room?

I don't know what your fucking problem is but take some fucking time off before you try to discuss anything again because you suck at it right now.

 

[mect]

Collins is a twat, there are very very few people amongst the tens of thousands of people who are in the area that think differently.

Do you have any evidence to back this up, or are you just making stuff up?

 

[mect]

You're being silly. If you can't see Dawkins contribution to Science, it's only because you have moved the Goal Posts to avoid them.

Not at all. He simply shares the same goal posts that most scientists do when judging scientific contribution, number of publications. As I posted earlier, Dawkins has 30, Collins has 400. Of course, there are other ways of contributing, such as trying to bring science to the general populace, which one could argue Dawkins has done quite a bit. However, if the goal is to bring acceptance, I agree that Dawkins doesn't do a very effective job because he likes to drag religion into a topic where it doesn't need to be, thus alienating religious people unneccessarily. Now certainly, Collins does the same thing on the other end of the spectrum, and as such is quite comparable to Dawkins in that respect. However, the reason that Collins is a highly respected scientist is not due to the books he has published for the general populace. So, I guess you are right in a way. If the metric you are using is contribution through works presented to the general public, they are probably quite equal. If the metric is the advancement of new scientific understanding, then there is no comparison.

 

[sandorski]

Not at all. He simply shares the same goal posts that most scientists do when judging scientific contribution, number of publications. As I posted earlier, Dawkins has 30, Collins has 400. Of course, there are other ways of contributing, such as trying to bring science to the general populace, which one could argue Dawkins has done quite a bit. However, if the goal is to bring acceptance, I agree that Dawkins doesn't do a very effective job because he likes to drag religion into a topic where it doesn't need to be, thus alienating religious people unneccessarily. Now certainly, Collins does the same thing on the other end of the spectrum, and as such is quite comparable to Dawkins in that respect. However, the reason that Collins is a highly respected scientist is not due to the books he has published for the general populace. So, I guess you are right in a way. If the metric you are using is contribution through works presented to the general public, they are probably quite equal. If the metric is the advancement of new scientific understanding, then there is no comparison.

Incorrect. That's just Penis measuring. Numbers don't show Impact/Influence on Science. That would be like comparing Architects and their Ability upon the number of Buildings Designed and not upon the Design itself.

 

[mect]

Incorrect. That's just Penis measuring. Numbers don't show Impact/Influence on Science. That would be like comparing Architects and their Ability upon the number of Buildings Designed and not upon the Design itself.

Sorry, but you are just wrong here. Ask anyone with a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline. Hence the phrase, publish or perish. Certainly, the quality of the publication is important, which is why journals have impact factors, but in general, numbers are what matter.