/lit/ - Literature

>Despises the notion of god
>Becomes one

>thinks by attacking dawkins personality that means anything he said about the stupidity of god is of lesser value

>>7157047
Where did I say that? I am an atheist myself.

It is just very fun to see how Dawkins himself has stablished his own religion.

>>7157033

>>7157047
I judge a man on a few of his speeches which suit my view from my puny life, never on his actions ...

Dawkins is the product of the entertainment after he was rejected from the science [his theory is too weak to be universally accepted in biology].

>>7157047
>tfw atheist
>tfw smarter than augustine and hegel
Feels good
Anyway g2g mom's gonna freak if she sees me posting on a freethinkers forum

>>7157064
>his theory is too weak to be universally accepted in biology

It was? Pls elaborate. I'm not pro or anti dawkins or anything, just curious

>>7157047
euphoric

>>7156990
>$100 000 a year
sounds reasonable

>>7157077
Dawkins took one step further, by reveal even more nothing at the upper levels. At least Elrond gave you more invented material.

>>7157074
this guy is a retard who doesn't know any science. even darwin's theory of evolution as he wrote it isn't universally accepted in biology.

>>7156990
It's like paying for an mmo that's vaporware but you can still level up.

>>7157059
>>7157064
>>7157068
>>7157081
*tips fedora*

>>7157094
>darwin's theory of evolution as he wrote it isn't universally accepted in biology.
Any sources?
I searched for a few websites, but most were offshoots of Christian organizations masquerading as real scientific sites/blogs.

>>7156990
>those comments

>>7156990
I think his next book is going to be about how militant atheists are also fucking retarded.
This is just a test to see how good/bad the situation is.

>>7157110
well memed

>>7157144
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
It's really more like "Darwin didn't consider some stuff so here's an elaboration" like relativity expanding off classical mechanics. It takes Einstein to predict Mercury's orbit for most applications Newton will do just fine, stuff like that.

>>7157447
>predict
explain, I mean.

>>7157074
I think he's speking bullshit. Natural selection at gene level is taken almost as dogma by today's biology stablishment. It is the so-called "neo-darwinism" and you can thank Dawkins for that.

Anyway, nothing is universally accpeted. For instance, there are biologist that don't believe in evolution.

>>7157457
>there are biologist that don't believe in evolution.
What alternate theories do they posit?

>>7157463
Intelligent design is one, but most evolution-deniers/skeptics just don't choose their own. You don't need to believe in evolution to study genetics, ecosystems, species, whatever.

It is rare that I see a biological study that uses explicitly the more problematic tenets of evolution. And when they use it, it is not uncommom to involve some kind of untestable rationalization.

>>7156990

Oh my this is amazing. I wonder what kind of superfreak fedora tipper attends these events though. Those must be some seriously weird people.

Doesn't change the fact that he's right though.

>>7157475
>the more problematic tenets of evolution
Like what? Seriously curious, any research I could do would lead to creationist sites talking about vestigial organs.

>>7157463
I know few biologists but some of them don't believe in evolution and stick with some Lamarck's theories without thinking too much about it. Not believing in Darwin's theory doesn't prevent them from doing research in related fields. Concerning myself, honestly, I don't know enough to accept or refute it but I have the feeling it has many weak points. The way many regular scientists are quiet and a couple of Darwinists keep derailing the discussion while dropping “kek you think in intelligent design you bigot?!!1” lead me to suppose there might be unexplained flaws out there.

>>7157487
all boils down to the theory not being too concerned with explaining how individuals' lives affect their genes. The accepted parts of the overall theory are insufficient, but never invalidated (which is why they're the accepted parts, duh)

>>7157499
>The way many regular scientists are quiet and a couple of Darwinists keep derailing the discussion while dropping “kek you think in intelligent design you bigot?!!1” lead me to suppose there might be unexplained flaws out there.
Dude, it's literally just fuckers with low self-esteem or straight-up asshole personalities bullying people. The separate parts which cohere to form evolutionary theory have all been proven about as much as experiment can prove anything; any rational objector would question how these parts fit together, or whether we're missing any parts which may hold unknown importance. It isn't by any means complete (in fact I think modern science rejects the notion of completeness) but it's a very strong structure for making predictions, providing explanations, and supporting repeated experiments.

>>7157525
As I told you, I don't that much about evolution theories. I just give me my feelings about it. To be honest, I don't think believing or not in evolution is such a big deal as long as we don't stick with Christians' shitty theories.

>>7157487
General unfalsibiality is one. Evolution makes no prediticion what so ever about ecosystems, even for simplified ones. Game theory is the closest thing they have and there's no theory that tries to form testable/reasonable links between games and ecosystems.

There's also some conflict between aristotelian thought and evolution. Dawkins opens saying in the Selfish Gene that one feature of evolution is that the theory explains how complexity arises from simplicty. For Aristotle, this would be a defect, not a feature. Every actuality traces itself back to another actuality ending in the pure actuality (Aristotle's God). So, everything in nature must lead back to something similar that existed before with the same level of complexity. There's nothing new under the sun for Aristotle. Evolution disregards this assertion by affirming that new characteristics in animals arise from nothing through mutation spountaineously. Ex nihilo, essentialy.

This "ex nihilo-ness" is essential for evolution since it is what actually explains the origin of new species from already existing ones. New faculties appear all the time and are "selected" by the enviroment. When enough of these differences show up in living beings up to the point that they cannot reproduce with other already existings species, there you have it: a new species.

This process is not well described by the evolution theory even if it is at the core of it. It cannot be tested as well. It also doesn't help that there are like 14 different definitions of species.

Dawkins solves some of these problems by forgetting the species and focusing in the genes as the true unity of natural selection. But in some way, he just brushed the mess to under the carpet. The problem is still there.

I cannot give you a book "why evolution is wrong" that is not some kind of christian propaganda. The best I can do is to point you to books of history of the evolution. The ones that start in pre-darwinian ideas and go through darwin himself, spencer, dawkins and beyond. They highlight these questions when tracing the development of the theory.

>>7157567
>There's also some conflict between aristotelian thought and evolution. Dawkins opens saying in the Selfish Gene that one feature of evolution is that the theory explains how complexity arises from simplicty. For Aristotle, this would be a defect, not a feature. Every actuality traces itself back to another actuality ending in the pure actuality (Aristotle's God). So, everything in nature must lead back to something similar that existed before with the same level of complexity. There's nothing new under the sun for Aristotle. Evolution disregards this assertion by affirming that new characteristics in animals arise from nothing through mutation spountaineously. Ex nihilo, essentialy.
Wouldn't Plato contradict this by saying that the information is not being created, but manifested directly from the pure actuality? Why cant pure actuality enter into ever step of causality as posited by al-Ghazali?

>>7157567

>This "ex nihilo-ness" is essential for evolution since it is what actually explains the origin of new species from already existing ones. New faculties appear all the time and are "selected" by the enviroment. When enough of these differences show up in living beings up to the point that they cannot reproduce with other already existings species, there you have it: a new species.

This shit is some cringe tier amount of ignorance about biology. I'm not even into science but that shit triggers me.

>>7156990
>>When you compare this to the going rate for other charismatic preachers, it does seem on the high side. The Pentecostal evangelist Morris Cerullo, for example, charges only $30 a month to become a member of ‘God’s Victorious Army’, which is bringing ‘healing and deliverance to the world’.
This is like the case-study in hypocrites fallacy. It's like the author of the piece is trying to say: "If I prove your belief system to be self-serving and money-hungry, my own self-serving and money-hungry beliefs are inherently more sensible!"

No reporter, it just makes you both wrong.

>>7157576
>>7157576
>Wouldn't Plato contradict this by saying that the information is not being created, but manifested directly from the pure actuality?
Yeah, you can appeal to Plato if you want. Nothing prevents that some kind of metaphysical entity is the true source of the apparent "newness" in living beings, but then you throw through the window any chance evolution has to ever be falsifiable. It becomes metaphysics.

>Why cant pure actuality enter into ever step of causality as posited by al-Ghazali?
Don't know enough about Al-ghazali to answer that confidently. But i'll try.

It is just that, if you accept that pure actuality has this faculty, the metaphysical scheme of "actual-potential" loses a lot of strengh, since we don't how or when God interferes in the process of actualization. Again, we start entering deeply in metaphysics territory. Something which most scientists abhor.

If you don't let Pure Actuality interfere whenever he wants, then you can do experiments since you can look in the world for sensible chains of potentiality-actuality, without worrying that the true cause of it is hiding somewhere inacessible to the senses.

>>7157481
>brief candlelight dinner
>brief

>go to Dawkins event
>oh boy oh boy finally the Rational One will deliver me from religion
>be seated at table
>this is totally worth the 6000 dollar service fee
>after half an hour Dawkins himself walks in
>fall on my knees before his all-intelligent person
>he shrugs annoyedly and sits down
>he starts shoving crackers in his face
>tell him how glad I am to finally meet him
>he rolls his eyes annoyedly
>points to his crotch
>start gobbling on his perfectly godless cock while crumbs fall on my hair
>thank you Dawkins

>>7156990
This isn't a problem with Dawkins or his organization to be honest.

It's a problem of Americanism. The fact that everything Americans touch turn into a brand is the problem.

>>7157481
Why is it so important that this be in the dark? Is it to keep people from looking around and realizing everyone else at the event is as fat and unshaven as they are, which realization then kicks off a dozen personal crises while Dawkins has to flee out the back door?

The part about it being brief also makes me wonder what he's doing with his time that's so valuable that he only has a few minutes to make however many thousands of dollars.

>>7158029
It's not about what he's doing with his time that's valuable. He could be sitting in the couch in his boxers all day, it wouldn't matter. It's about projecting an aura of exclusivity. Same way that diamonds aren't worth close to near what they sell for, he's just pumping himself up making retards think that his time is valuable.

>>7157567
>Evolution makes no prediticion what so ever about ecosystems, even for simplified ones.
Invasive species can disrupt an ecosystem's balance by being more adapted to exploiting a given resource more effectively than any native species. If the invasive species is able to establish itself, the native species will either die by being out-competed, or natural selection will act on the population such that they are more suited to the new status quo. All can be summed in a single evolutionary prediction, which is that the disruption will lead to a change in allele frequency through natural selection over time.

Evolution is absolutely an integral part of genetics, ecology and speciation.

>>7157666
>Englishman does something stupid
>It's America's fault

Typical Britbong

>>7157567
>aquinasfags are actually this ignorant of anything that doesn't fit their autistic worldview and this oblivious of their own colossal thinking errors
>mfw

Seriously, how do people like you not forget to breathe? Also

>what are fossilized bunnies from the Cambrian

>>7158086
>Invasive species can disrupt an ecosystem's balance by being more adapted to exploiting a given resource more effectively than any native species. If the invasive species is able to establish itself, the native species will either die by being out-competed, or natural selection will act on the population such that they are more suited to the new status quo. All can be summed in a single evolutionary prediction, which is that the disruption will lead to a change in allele frequency through natural selection over time.

I give you a invasive species and a description of the invaded ecosystem. Can you give an estimative of the number of individuals of that species after a certain time? Can you tell me even if the species will adpat itself to the ecosystem and which other species will increase its population or go extinct because of the introduction of the invader?

The answers rarely go beyond "things will happen, things will change.. maybe". Too vague to be called predictions and truly be falsifiable.

>Evolution is absolutely an integral part of genetics, ecology and speciation

The opposite. Intelligent design also agrees with those more stablished disciplines. Evolution is also not a consequece of them. It even precedes them in time.

Anyway, I'm not a evolution-denier. I'm just saying that is not unresonable position to think that it is a weak theory and in due time it will be replaced by a less incomplete theory that will be better at making predictions. Similar to the relation between Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics.

>>7158149

Intelligent design is a complete fucking joke. It has precisely zero testable explanations for why we have different species. It's not being taken seriously beyond a lunatic fringe of the American Christian right

>>7158111

He may be an englishman but this shit is entirely a symptom of american culture and perversion.

This sort of crap wouldn't fly in the UK at all.

>>7157421
He lost the public understanding of science chair at Oxford that was paid for/created by space man Simonyi. So he's trying to make up for lost revenue and remain in the manner to which he is accustomed

>Meanwhile, the leader of the world's largest religious body speaks to children, the homeless, and prisoners for free

>>7158149
>>I give you a invasive species and a description of the invaded ecosystem. Can you give an estimative of the number of individuals of that species after a certain time?
the point is that evolution is rather one offered mechanism, but not theory [a theory being descriptive through the mechanism + giving predictions [likely quantized], stemming from the consequences of the hypotheses of the descriptive mechanism, of other observables.

>>7156990
Dawkins is an idiot on a lot of stuff, but whoever egotistical he is it doesn't change his credentials or his opinions.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite, it just makes him a capitalist. If people are willing to pay for an overpriced service why not provide it?

>>7158187
>>Meanwhile, the leader of the world's largest religious body speaks to children

They pay in kind

>>7158149
There may be an interesting quantum evolution break through on the horizon. Like through quantum effects the gene mutations can somewhat feel ahead for what will make a beneficial mutation or something of that ilk.

One quite interesting recent thing was using heavy water to measure mutation rates in bacteria, so the heavier hydrogen nuclei actually reduced mutation because of less quantum tunnelling. So there's certainly some quantum effect at play even if it doesn't meaningfully do anything beyond rates of mutation. But what I found particularly interesting from that is over time because we lose more and more lighter hydrogen nuclei to space and so the percentage of heavy water increases gradually over millions of years, we are less likely to have gene mutations as time goes on from that effect.

>>7158149
>Too vague to be called predictions
It is very specific. The allele frequency a population will change over time as a result of the disruption. You'll say that's vague, but because populations and ecosystems are very complex, the prediction gets turned into something more specific in context. For example, instead of "change" you would specifically have directional/stabilizing/disrupted distinct from previous for some p value, instead of "allele frequency" you would be looking at one or more genes in a specific population, and "over time" would be specific time-points of measurement.

In this case, it would be falsified if there were repeated measurements of a lack of genetic change in any of the affected populations after the establishment of the invasive species. A longterm study that repeatedly showed a lack of genetic change at the population level after the establishment of an invasive species would be a serious problem if it was replicated by multiple independent sources. But with evolution, the change will be there. The timeframe might be different than you expect, or the invasion might actually affect population C more than population B therefore population A was relatively unaffected, but that's a common quirk of ecology in general. Studying systems means looking at all the parts, not necessarily the most obvious ones.

>The opposite
Genetics requires evolution to understand how environmental changes lead to changes in allele frequencies, or put differently "why" rather than "how" genetic change occurs. Ecology requires the understanding of niches and competition, and evolution links competition with longterm niche maintenance/change, and how populations change to deal with each other (Red Queen Hypothesis). Speciation is a direct result of evolutionary processes resulting in populations not mating with each other (for example, exploiting different food resources and migration patterns shifting as a result) with the end result of species that can't mate with each other.

>>7158149

>I give you an invasive species and an invaded ecosystem. Can you predict...?

I take it you've never been in a lab before. Biologists build these kinds of models all the time. Hell, students are expected to. Google 'evolutionarily stable strategies' for a little primer.

>>7158173
Sure

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/02/broadcasting.religion

>>7158328

A biology- and statistics-literate anon on /lit/. Today is a good day.

>>7156990
>For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year

wut

I would be interested if anyone can find reference to any of these mysterious extra "circles" on the website as the article claims. Pic related is all there is

Also
>Spectator
>capitalist magazine complains about capitalism

>>7158406

It's entirely possible to be in favor of the market system and yet still call people out on their hypocrisy. No c.d. necessary.

>>7158406
>selfish gene level - 60$
>all of the above PLUS A LAPEL PIN

lmao who the fuck pays 35$ extra for a lapel pin

>>7158483
people of faith... oh wait

>>7158483
People who want to be official authorized atheists instead of poorfag bootleg atheists.

>tfw too poor to be an advanced OTIII level atheist and must languish at casual-tier atheism.

>>7156990
>My man in the pub was at the very low end of what believers will do and pay for: the Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles.


kek

>>7156990
Isn't he just copying Anton LaVey Satanism but without the sex rituals?

>>7158596
Do you think within the final concentric circle you get to dress up as a CoE vicar and fuck his anus?

>>7158600
>>7158603
Oh snap! Don't speak too soon, there may still be an inner sanctum tier

>>7157047
No one said anything about that. Can't we just be attacking his personality?

>>7158406
>240$ for an invitation to an annual conversation with duurkins

something is seriously sad about this.

I generally hate Dawkins, but I'll give that if I were famous for a particular something, in science, in arts, in movies, being a vlogger or tv host or good at skating or whatever, I'd do the same thing and sell myself, sell people to sit next to me for as high as they would offer.

I mean, if you asked me out and said you'd pay for dinner I'd probably accept even if you were a bit of annoying guy. But if you asked me out and paid dinner and gave me 1000 dollars, I'd would most definitely accept it, even if you take me to eat something I hate, or if I had to endure your ass licking about something great you think I did.

the moment i saw this i started thinking about scientology, lol

>>7157110
*tips fedora* is about autistic atheists you fucking dolt

>>7158720
I do respect a man who takes seriously his memes
Of him I hope and wonder!
'Tis he who fills my dreams!
*tips fedora*

>>7158734
Take a step back and look at yourself

>>7158739
says the guy who takes his memes seriously

*tops fedoopa*

>>7158739
Like any true intellectual, I perform self reflection when a lesser man might pray. I can only conclude that I am a most supreme specimen of gentleman

>>7158111
Ikr this is hilarious. The most made me actually laugh. Almost as hilarious as anything the Finnish say on this site.

>>7156990
the inner circles is called the darwin circles, its like darwin is their kim il sung or l ron, pretty spooky i aint talkin bout max

>>7158111
Kek this

>tfw you served 15 years in Dan Dennett's Brights Legion alongside operatives of Dawkins' Evolution Circle
>tfw you even once saw Great Intellect Richard walking alongside The Titan of Tufts, with your own eyes
>tfw you gave your youth, your health, and your life to them, so that your children could know a better future, a future without organised religion on the Internet
>tfw you find out they let just anybody in these days, anybody who pays
>tfw your rank is meaningless

Flamewar.. Flamewar has changed

>>7157481
Why is light the only bit in white in the title? That makes it seem more Christian than anything.

>>7156990
>Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Does this actually do anything except organize talks where Dawkins can preach to the choir? If they actually want to find 'a cure for religion' they should be trying harder.

>>7157047
No everything he said about God was stupid to begin with. This just serves to point out the stupidity of his followers -- people like you. I mean, 100,000 a year to have breakfast with Dawkins, how much of a homosexual do you have to be? kek

>>7158614
>>>240$ for an invitation to an annual conversation with duurkins
>
>something is seriously sad about this.

>>something is seriously sad about this.
it is what you do when you wanted to be scientist, but failed in academia

>>7157353
>The Guardian (of Islam)
kekekekek'd looks like /pol/ found it

ok

>>7161485
Moar

>>7161485
he's an autist

>>7161629
m-more?

>>7157144
Nietzsche's view on evolution was more complete.

>>7161629
>I have no plan for if Gord is real

>>7157068
kek

>>7156990
Great point OP. Reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

>>7161953
>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both?
Arms, standing straight (somewhat), hair, the hability to use tools

>>7157567
>that bullshit about Aristotle
I'm all for starting with the greeks, but if you are going to speculate about modern day science you need to fucking pick up a textbook and read it. This is explained through the laws of thermodynamics and how energy and entropy work. You're the charicature of someone who studies philosophy and refuses to understand anything about science that the STEMfags have.

>>7161953
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

>>7161953
>if there was a common ancestor, humans and chimps diverged from it along different evolutionary lines

ok

>it follows that this common ancestor should have the features of both

ok

>so why don't chimpanzees have the features of both humans and chimps? CHECKMATE EVOLUTION

>>7162006
>>7161953
Out of which noodle hole is this copypasta falling

>>7161988
You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

>>7161485
Literally just looking for something to complain about.

>>7162008

It figurs a Doug poster would get triggered by obvious bait

>>7162058
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Chimps and humans are almost identical. Chimps just don't have the capacity for language, that's really the only big difference. Even a lizard is incredibly similar to a human. Still basically a tube with openings on either end, largely the same skeleton, same organs, etc.

>>7162008
>>7162018
>>7162081
what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus). Anyway, that's what I was thinking about, OP.

>>7161629
Is there more man? I love Dawkins' tweets and complaints. Shows me how autistic people act when they grow up.

>>7161953
>>7162006
can't explain why should we had all the bias of the biased assumption that we can continue to evolution: The bias of the case. But the evidence against evolution can't explain why should we had a theory

back into the subject:

The problem is, chimpanzees and made stuff up believers in discussing the correct ideas about it, there are able to share and that he was a common ancestor have features of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why should we be deluded. However, if chimps don't have to have to brainwash (for lack of dissenters (some of darwinism. Darwinism is correct, you just being told "this is correct, you think about life science, based on the biased assumption that he was a common ancestor have a theory full of both, then how are there are only a significant percent that 4-6 million years ago, humans and that's the humans evolved from humans. Obviously since humans didn't exist, and there are tens of both. The problem is, many scientists aren't the theory, then why chimpanzees and ignore the darwinists have "evolved" from dinosaurs, therefore there are there still a human.

>>7162158
The point isn't that "chimpanzees and made stuff up believers in discussing the correct ideas about it," if I understand you correctly, it's that evolutionists aren't able to come to the right comclusion based on biases.
It's not that "evolution can't explain why should we be deluded," because evolution doesn't try to explain that. Scientists who believe in evolution are the ones who need to explain why humans and chimps could have common ancestor.
The problem isn't that "many scientists aren't the theory," it's that many scientists don't QUESTION the theory.
Finally, no one claims that "the darwinists have evolved from dinosaurs," that's just a strawman. Dinosaurs evolved into birds, not humans.Humans and dinosaurs would have had a common acnestor that was similar to both humans and dinosaurs.

Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.

So I guess we can finally end this "Atheism isn't just another religion" meme

Contemporary atheism is coarse and crass

Two pages from Nietzsche is worth more than everything this buffoon has ever written.

>>7162227
Except Nietzsche was arguing basically the same thing as Dawkins - that Darwin undermines god

>>7162209
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

>>7162238

Nietzsche did it far better, and there were other points in his work as well that undermined Darwin.

Dawkins is the kind of scientific objectivist that Nietzsche ridiculed for hypocrisy and blind belief in some interpretation of experience.

>>7162243
On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species who's dna has been thoroughly investigated.

>>7162298
Please tell me this is a samefag delivering copypasta

>>7162295
> other points in his work as well that undermined Darwin.

which ones?

btw Nietzche would be a fail using Darwinism framework.

>>7162304

Nietzsche took issue with Darwin's concept of 'survival' as teleological principle. He believed such a principle assumed a niggardly state of existence for all living things which does not correspond to reality.

The concept of survival of the fittest or survival of the best also does not pan out. The strongest and best are defeated in nature again and again by the herd, the mob, etc.

>>7162333
what if the best/fittests are those that get along with the herd/mob (or belong to it.).

>>7162301
All I'm saying is if you identify common ancestors based on shared features, whether that's DNA matching or morphological traits, then you can't account for spiders and human relationship. You could make the claim that shrimp are the common ancestor of humans and spiders. Ok, so 300 million years ago, some shrimp got isolated and underwent speciation. Then later maybe another group of shrimp branched off. The original shrimp population remained unchanged. Ok, as unlikely as that is, even if it were the case, it still doesn't explain how spiders have 8 legs and humans have 2 legs. The common ancestor of humans are mammals, which have 4 legs, so if you compare humans and mammals, their common ancestor had to have had 3 legs in order to be the simplest amount of change between each species. However, if you apply the same comparative method to spiders and mammals, you see that it's impossible to have a common ancestor with that number of legs. Adding shrimp in there just makes things even more difficult, because the common ancestor of humans and spiders now also has to have a common ancestor with a shrimp, which has I don't know how many legs, so you'll get an even more bizarre fraction number of legs.

>>7162333
>niggardly

don't call me that, cracker

>>7156990
Kent Hovinid was right
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UrmHMpyIcdY

Complexity implies design = therefore a creator
Simplicity implies optimized design = therefore a creator

>>7162532
When something cannot be falsified, it becomes doubly true.

>>7162386

Completely different root, you stupid ape.

The only respectable famous atheist was Douglas Adams, and he's dead.

>>7162333
>The concept of survival of the fittest or survival of the best also does not pan out. The strongest and best are defeated in nature again and again by the herd, the mob, etc.
This is a misconception born from differing definitions of the word "fit." Survival of the fittest does not mean the strongest survives, it means the one that "fits" in best with its environment survives.

An animal might be what we consider traditionally strongest or the best. But all those muscles require lots of food and energy. If its in an environment where food is scarce and there is not enough biomass to feed it, it will likely die without passing on genes. Meanwhile, an animal that is weak and slow might have correspondingly low energy requirements, and be able to survive in the environment just fine. The "herd" and "mob" are both strategies for fitting in with the environment, and that we seem them defeat what we would consider "better" or "stronger" is in no way conflicting with the actual definition of survival of the fittest.

>>7158187
>And has publicly endorsed evolution.

Francis is based.

>>7157353
>Hey, great post. I even quoted you in my own. I am an American atheist feminist who adores Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins was cool back in the day, but lately he's gone a bit mad. Believes his own press releases I guess.

>>7162570
>The only respectable famous atheist was Douglas Adams, and he's in Hell now.
fix'd that for you.