[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 111 KB, 800x789, richard-dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262086 No.1262086 [Reply] [Original]

Let me lay down some facts:

1. With his gene centric view of evolution he contributed a lot to science

2. Like Sagan, but especially in the UK, he has done a lot to popularize science and especially evolution.

3. His aggressive stance on atheism is justified, ignorance is not something that should go unchallenged.

4. He is right to say that people who believe in god and the bible stories are stupid, there is no evidence to support the theory that it happened that way.

5. He is right to assume there is no god, logically speaking religion is a negative, that is to say that it is saying something has happened as opposed to the other theories that have evidence.

6. He is also right to say that evolution is a fact, we have fossil records, we have the human genome project that means we don't even need a fossil record to prove evolution, we don't have all records of all animals in their various stages of evolution but we have enough. To say that we don’t have a fossil of each stage in an animal’s evolution and therefor e evolution is wrong, is akin to saying that because we don’t know the names of everyone who fought at Waterloo the battle didn’t happen.

>> No.1262102

>>1262086

I agree. But this thread is troll bait.

>> No.1262104

>He is right to say that people who believe in god and the bible stories are stupid

he doesn't

>> No.1262115

>>1262104
u mad?

>> No.1262114

People keep making the assumption that a belief in a creator/god and science cannot go together. What about Deists?

>> No.1262132

>>1262104
>>1262104

I remember seeing a youtube video where he explicitly says that, but I can't find it at the moment.

>> No.1262157

>>1262104
why doesn't he?

>> No.1262188
File: 164 KB, 407x405, brits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262188

He's a misanthropic caricature.

Figures he's most closely associated with the Fucktarded Kingdom. (The rest of the world progresses, fags. Fuck your shit.)

>> No.1262192

>>1262114
Imagine a professor who notices something new, instead of saying that it would make a good research project for a student, he puts it down to an act of god, an not a thing would have been learnt.

>> No.1262208

>>1262188
I disagree, and would like to add that that is rich coming from (presumably you are from the U.S) a country that still refuses to use the metric system. Also the queen still brings in more money than she takes.

>> No.1262214

>>1262188
Either a troll, or you actually don't know about the UK's religiousity. Enjoy your one nation under God.

>> No.1262220

> 1. With his gene centric view of evolution he contributed a lot to science

evolutionary biologist here.

this made me lol.

the genic view of evolution isn't accepted by most biologists.

>> No.1262222

I am an atheist but I tell everyone I am a theist just to fuck with assholes like Dawkins who think that Theists are all morons that hate science.

>> No.1262229

>>1262214
>>1262188
Lets not turn this into yet another nationalist's debate.

>> No.1262243

>>1262114
The two modes of thinking - religious and scientific - sit badly together.

Of course, deism isn't religious - but most of these arguments are about whether religion is justified, not whether theism is justified. The two get tangled more than they should.

>> No.1262240

>>1262208
>the queen brings in more money then she takes.

She takes billions.
Tourists by and large don't give a fuck.
Admit it.

And OP, Dawkins is a cunt and the reason I hate atheists.
And I am an atheist....

>> No.1262238

>2. Like Sagan, but especially in the UK, he has done a lot to popularize science and especially evolution.
>UK
>popularise

>> No.1262252

>>1262240
>billions

for a minute there I didn't see the trollface.jpg

>> No.1262259
File: 9 KB, 429x410, deadpan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262259

>>1262240
>She takes billions.

>> No.1262273

>>1262114

if you beleive in a creator god, but know absolutely jack squat about him, its equivalent to not believing in a god at all. and is thus equivalent to atheism.

>> No.1262291

>>1262229
Oh yes, let's. This is a junk thread anyway, and the brits are total cunts whose monarch still seriously thinks she owns the world.

(WE USE WHATEVER UNITS WE FIND CONVENIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION, TRY TO STOP US FAGGOTS! ha)

>> No.1262300
File: 42 KB, 481x358, 1276627912308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262300

>>1262240

Billions and billions.

>> No.1262304

>>1262291

You're that faggot who's making retarded posts about transhumanism aren't you? Why can't you just fuck off back to /b/?

>> No.1262312

>>1262240
Civil List (tax money to royal family) held at 7.8million/year until 2015. Queen alone pays far more than this in income and corporation tax.

>> No.1262315

>>1262304
Nope. Transhumanism's like /x/ material, duder.

>> No.1262317

>>1262220
What is the accepted view of evolution?

>> No.1262327

>>1262317

the phenotypic view. phenotypes, not single genes, are affected by NS.

>> No.1262338
File: 366 KB, 465x515, PILD CHORN.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262338

>>1262315
>Implying I meant that transhumanism should leave, rather than this faggot's shitty trolling

>> No.1262339

>>1262220
Just because you call your self an evolutionary biologist it doesn't shit, it is the accepted view, ask any actual scientist.

>> No.1262345

>>1262327
ohyou.jpg

>> No.1262355

>>1262317
Dont listen to >>1262220, he is a giant faggot.

>> No.1262362

>>1262339

what?

read some journals. there are less than 6 papers on NS affecting a single gene and thousands on it having the main impact on the phenotype.

also, lrn2ernstmyer

>> No.1262364
File: 21 KB, 100x150, Extended_Phenotype.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262364

>>1262327

>> No.1262366

>>1262338
oh loo?

>> No.1262373

>>1262355
>>1262345
>>1262339
>>1262362
Thank you.
I don't really understand evolutionary biology very much.
Why is the Genic view right or wrong?

>> No.1262374

>>1262364

who peer reviewed that one?

>> No.1262375

>>1262086
he's too lenient and forgiving but he's on the right track.

shit thread though..

>> No.1262389

>>1262373

The genic view says individual genes are selected by natural selection. The other views (group, etc) are garbage.

The main view is at the individual level, where individuals (i.e. the fastest rabbit, the strongest chimp) survives.

Single genes can affect fitness, but very, very rarely.

>> No.1262396

>>1262317
The one that doesn't involve an invisible sky magician farting the world into being.

Also, biologists suggest that genes are selected only insomuch as the resulting characteristics are - the phenome leads, the genome follows, which is why undesirable characteristics don't disappear overnight.

>> No.1262401

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

>> No.1262398

>>1262374
Are you kidding? You want names of people who reviewed a paper that was published 11 years before I was born?

>> No.1262410

>>1262396
If you had actually read The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, you would know that is what Dawkins suggests.

>> No.1262413

>>1262398


It's not a paper. It's a book.

e.g. not peer reviewed.

>> No.1262418

Dawkins didn't even come up with the gene centered view of evolution, you faggots.

All he did was write a book on it.

Stupids.

>> No.1262421

>>1262338 PILD CHORN.png
huh. You the same badass as >>1262239 ? "HA HA HA HA HA SINISTER"?

>> No.1262426

>>1262413
The term paper can still apply, and if it is book that puts forward a theory then it will get reviewed,

>> No.1262436

>>1262418
Science needs to be accepted by the stupid, uneducated masses before it can move on to the next level. He's helping science.

>> No.1262437

>>1262426

Have you actually read a peer-reviewed paper?

I bet you're an undergraduate.

Books and papers have disparate formats and books are published, then reviewed. Not reviewed then published.

>> No.1262443

>>1262418

He also didn't come up with the concept of the meme. He just coined the name for it.

Dawkins is a well marketed do-nothing.

>> No.1262448

>>1262426
Consider it to be a really, really, really epically long paper.

>> No.1262452

>>1262114
Yes we deists are an awesome bunch

>> No.1262456

>>1262448

With no materials/methods section.

Or experimental design section.

Just an intro, body and conclusion.

Awesome.

>> No.1262461

>>1262437
My point is that it put forward something new and was reviewed, and as far as I am aware of, was accepted.

>> No.1262471

>>1262461

It's not the dominant model in evo bio. It is like r-K selection theory in ecology. Really nifty, but is shit compared to bet-hedging theory, but still used.

>> No.1262477

>>1262456
>criticizes professor at Oxford
>says nothing of own work

>> No.1262478

>>1262273
>if you can't state the properties of god then you don;t believe in him!

are all you atheists this stupid?

>> No.1262475

i love that people beg to ask who peer reviewed dawkins work... but before he was oxford professor for the public understanding of science, he was the reader (which is a level higher than lecturer).
that means HE PROOFREAD everyone elses biology papers

>> No.1262484

>>1262471 , >>1262477

>> No.1262490

>>1262456
>>1262437
>>1262418
>>1262413

Come on then, show us all one of your papers.

>> No.1262494

>>1262413
so true

I never did much research about it accept a few books on molecular biology ad the stuff you learn at school... but nothing really dealing with trying to explicitly support or oppose his theory.

Anyway gene selection is so fucking elegant that if it isn't true then it fucking should be (well the same may go for some gods too but whatever).

After glancing through this thread I have an urge to do some checking on the possible contradictions arising from such a theory, but that will have to wait untill AFTER I get me some sleep.

And to those who haven't read the selfish gene and the extended phenotype - DO IT FAGGOTS (even if its somewhat of a speculation, much of it seems logical - it's great food for thought on so many levels, again MAYBE the same can be said by some about the bible, but ITS A FUCKING BORING SELF-CONTRADICTING POORLY WRITTEN PIECE OF PRACTICAL ADVICE WHICH WAS GOOD 2000+ years ago).

P.S. I view his atheist zeal as being within "character" like Yatzhee's pissed off game-reviewing... they both in reality respect the opinions of other people, but try to challenge the status quo by bolstering their own voews to the point of near absurdity.

tl;dr: Dawkins is an intelligent troll

>> No.1262495

>>1262478
How _can_ you belive in something you know nothing about? Don't just critizise it, explain it! This is /sci/ after all..

>> No.1262501

>>1262490
that's not a good argument.. I don't need to be a good singer to say someone has no talent.

>> No.1262505

>>1262477

Ad-hominem fallacy.

I have papers, but why the fuck would I give you my name?

btw, I am 22 and published.

The journal is The Journal of Herpetology.
But that's all I'll give you.

>> No.1262507

>>1262475
I'm not sure that means what you think it means. "Reader" is basically "professor-in-waiting".

>> No.1262515

>>1262495
I believe in a god because of the physics and astronomy i have studied. I can't claim to know anything about god except that he crated the laws of the universe, then those laws created us. anything after that is arrogance

>> No.1262518

>>1262501

No, but if you are criticizing a professor of Oxford it would help us to get on your side if you could show us what you have done.

>> No.1262521

>>1262421
What? No.

I love it when people wrongly call samefag.

>> No.1262533

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>> No.1262536

>>1262505
>no proof that you don't spend your time reading pop-science books trying to be a hipster by posting on 4chan

>> No.1262537

>>1262518

I do work on chelonian thermoregulatory precision and its effect on ovipositioning.

Not glamorous; what does it matter to you? Appealing to authority is shit tier logic.

>> No.1262542
File: 6 KB, 126x126, you have shocked horo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262542

>>1262515
>I believe in a god because of the physics and astronomy i have studied.

>> No.1262548

>>1262542
>>1262542
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

>> No.1262552

>>1262533
There absence of evidence that there is a microscopic pink tea-cup orbiting Saturn's outer rings, that means there is no evidence of absence, wait, that means we should give the theory of the pink tea-cup some of our attention.

>> No.1262557
File: 26 KB, 395x600, Hermione_Epic_Win.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262557

>>1262086
Agreed! THANKS OP!

>> No.1262559

>>1262548
I didn't state any opinion, man.

>> No.1262561

>>1262537
Not always.

Shit logic is saying that a theory isn't valid if it isn't put out in a specific way and format.

>> No.1262572

>>1262561

I never said that. I was pedantic and noted the differences between real journals and books.

Genic evolution is cool; it is handy, but it isn't supported well by data. It has a few studies, but it is outnumbered 100 to 1 to journals that find the individual is the level of selection.

But genic evolution still predicts things, if you take reductionism and apply it to the individual level.

>> No.1262574

>>1262515
>except
see, you can't..

>> No.1262586

>>1262572
But the individual is influence by the genes!

>> No.1262593

>>1262552
Reductio ad absurdam is also shit tier logic.

>> No.1262605

>>1262586

Applying reductionism to the level of the individual.

>> No.1262610

>>1262593
Not really, it was putting what the post I replied to in context, the absurdity is saying that 2000 years ago some guy died on a cross for our sins and that we have the symbolically drink his blood, or saying that some deity created the universe.

>> No.1262622

>>1262586
Yes, but it's the overall result that matters. A bird with genes for god tier vision isn't going to do quite as well as you'd hope if it only ever developed one wing.

>> No.1262630

>>1262605
I am struggling to see how I could be wrong in saying that the genes influence the body and that the bodies that are able to pass on their genetic information do so and the genetic information spreads.

>> No.1262637
File: 41 KB, 600x603, zleepin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262637

>this thread

>> No.1262640
File: 18 KB, 333x597, 1277215593999.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262640

>>1262086
THIS POST = WIN!
PRIZE = TITS!

>> No.1262648

>>1262630

The phenotype is more than genes. It is also the environment. Having the best genes but growing up with poor environmental standards will hurt your phenotype.

Meaning genes are not everything, but only a portion. Genic evolution doesn't explain the other factors too well.

>> No.1262651

>>1262622
I don't think anyone has said that evolution is perfect, obviously things like that will happen, albeit less dramatically.

>> No.1262664

>>1262648
>Genic evolution doesn't explain the other factors too well.

Go on..

>> No.1262663

>>1262651
It was a crude example for illustration, nothing more. The phenome is influenced by environmental factors too.

>> No.1262669

does dawkins realise you dont convert people by calling them idiots and ridiculing their beliefs.

>> No.1262671

>>1262664

Uhh... the environment is independent of genetics.

If the phenotype is affected by the environment but the best genes are present and the organism has lower than average fitness then the gene centered view can't be 100% correct.

>> No.1262677

>>1262669
Yeah, but you're allowed you if they're idiots and their beliefs are retarded.

>> No.1262692
File: 23 KB, 290x267, weeeewillywilly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1262692

>>1262669
Too obvious. You need to be more subtle.

Either that or be absurdly over the top like that huge moron whose name I forget

>> No.1262695

>>1262671
You assume that organisms are always well suited to their environment and that bad genes for the environment = end of the line for that organism.

>> No.1262712

>>1262695

No, I am NOT an adaptationist.

>> No.1262711

>>1262677
its fine with me, but it annoys me when he complains that no enough people are converting to atheism when its clear why that is.

>> No.1262717 [DELETED] 

#################################
####THE /SCI/ THREAD MARKER####
#################################

How do magnets work Intellectual Debate
| |
########--------------------------------------+-----------########

>> No.1262738

>>1262712
Well judging from your previous posts it sorta looks that way, you made the assumption that animals with lower than average fitness would have a lot trouble passing on their genes.

>> No.1262744

>>1262738

That's the definition....

If your fitness is lower than average, you're not reproducing as much.

>> No.1262805

>>1262744
>Having the best genes but growing up with poor environmental standards will hurt your phenotype.
But through natural selection the body, the carrier of genetic information, can be adapted to the environment.
You can be below average in one area but still be able to pass on your genetic information, take humans poor eye sight for example.