Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Evolution - some questions

2456

Comments

  • #32
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude.

    I was a microbiologist a long time before I even heard of him. Knowing who he is is certainly not necessary to understanding evolution.


  • #33
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Sarky wrote: »
    The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude.

    Which you'll agree has no reflection on his talents as an evolutionary biologist and author on the subject. He also has a strong ability to articulate scientific concepts into language that a lay person can understand.

    I can only suggest you read some of his books and you might change your opinion. I have only found him to be abrasive and rude to those who talk sh*t.

    There's an interesting debate online between him and Laurence Krauss where they argue the soft vs. hard approach when debating the religious and religious concepts.


  • #34
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Sarky wrote: »
    The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude.

    OMG CONTEXT! :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o


  • #35
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Met Dawkins, disappointed. Very soft hands too, never thinned mangles I reckon. Would prefer to have met Sagan.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oXFWKpJiA&feature=fvwrel


  • #36
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Met Dawkins, disappointed. Very soft hands too, never thinned mangles I reckon. Would prefer to have met Sagan.

    Now there's a God if I ever met one.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    Sarky wrote: »
    The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude.

    I don't think Dawkins is particularly abrasive or rude. He is very direct and won't soften his language when explaining things which will inevitably rub some people up the wrong way. I admire him for that because I'm the type of person who would soften my language depending on who I'm talking to. There is an innocence to people who approach things that way ("how could they be offended by the facts") but also an optimism in that we may hope people will some day not label someone offensive/rude for being direct about any truth be they harsh or otherwise. He 'aint perfect by any means (see his comments about elevator-gate) but I definitely admire the guy.


  • #38
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    he doesnt suffer fools all right


  • #39
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Here are a bunch of .pdf's from a course on evolution based off of this book.
    The syllabus is entirely composed of that book, the pdf's & Dawkin's Selfish
    Gene so you might like to browse the slides & hopefully get the book to go
    more in depth.


  • #40
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Met Dawkins, disappointed. Very soft hands too, never thinned mangles I reckon. Would prefer to have met Satan.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oXFWKpJiA&feature=fvwrel
    fyp. After all, he's our real leader, Dr. D's just his viceroy on earth.


  • #41
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    mewso wrote: »
    I don't think Dawkins is particularly abrasive or rude. He is very direct and won't soften his language when explaining things which will inevitably rub some people up the wrong way. I admire him for that because I'm the type of person who would soften my language depending on who I'm talking to. There is an innocence to people who approach things that way ("how could they be offended by the facts") but also an optimism in that we may hope people will some day not label someone offensive/rude for being direct about any truth be they harsh or otherwise. He 'aint perfect by any means (see his comments about elevator-gate) but I definitely admire the guy.

    Aye, if someone isn't amazed everytime they look at the stars then I have no time for them. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    The OP will mutate and adapt and those who ridiculed him will stagnate and expire! :P


  • #43
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,840 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    FrankAmazing wrote: »
    Have been doing some study on evolution and would like some things cleared up for me if someone would be so kind.

    Just curious, but why did you ask this here, in the A&A forum, and not in the Science forums?


  • #44
    zico10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭zico10


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Just curious, but why did you ask this here, in the A&A forum, and not in the Science forums?
    FrankAmazing wrote: »
    Have been doing some study on evolution and would like some things cleared up for me if someone would be so kind.

    From the same post;
    FrankAmazing wrote: »
    i posted here as it seems to be a more active forum than the biology one.
    thanks


  • #45
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    thats biology for you!
    slow progress.
    Should see the geology fora


  • #46
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,138 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Few things in this world make my blood boil than seeing someone ask along the lines of, "If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?"

    Someone asked me that in work during the week. I answered the question, and someone else said "So, do you really believe that we evolved from monkeys?" - as if such a thing was on a par with the really, really mad end of Scientology or something.

    I'd understand if this person was a devout creationist Christian - at least they'd have a dogmatic belief in opposition to evolution that they'd see as the truth, but she's just your average cultural catholic. I certainly don't mind people asking questions, but it nearly made me weep for our secondary school science curriculum if the very notion of evolution seems so outlandish even to educated people.

    Although thinking about it, this was the same person that asked me if I had to get permission from my Parish Priest when I got married in a Registry Office. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised.


  • #47
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Few things in this world make my blood boil than seeing someone ask along the lines of, "If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?"

    My response is usually "If you were born from your parents, why are your parents still alive?"


  • #48
    Salma Gigantic Baton
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Salma Gigantic Baton


    if adults come from children why are there still children??!


    yeah, bet you didn't think of that one, atheists :mad:

    except mad hatter. grmbl grmbl


  • #49
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    bluewolf wrote: »

    except mad hatter. grmbl grmbl

    Yours is better :)


  • #50
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,840 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    bluewolf wrote: »
    if adults come from children why are there still children??!

    I was looking for this pokemon related one to post, when I came across this:
    5160919963_8985bba2a3.jpg
    made me laugh :).


  • #51
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    phutyle wrote: »
    I'd understand if this person was a devout creationist Christian - at least they'd have a dogmatic belief in opposition to evolution that they'd see as the truth, but she's just your average cultural catholic. I certainly don't mind people asking questions, but it nearly made me weep for our secondary school science curriculum if the very notion of evolution seems so outlandish even to educated people.
    There's a very valid reason why people ask the "Why are there still monkeys" question.

    It's because of this very well-known image/idea:
    6a00d8341ca86d53ef0133f1a5f4f5970b-800wi

    When you get a summary of evolution in school or college, or anywhere basically, you get the above image. Which basically shows what is clearly a chimpanzee, morphing into a human being. If this diagram is not accompanied with the "common ancestor" discussion, then the person is immediately going to assume that we came from chimpanzees, which in turn leads to an obvious question: Why did we change and the chimpanzee didn't?

    I wouldn't level criticism at the people who ask the question. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm glad that some people look at the image and manage to see a very obvious flaw in it, all on their own. When presented as an visual explanation of evolution, it needs volumes to explain exactly what's being described. But it's typically presented as an description of evolution all in itself.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    My response is usually "If you were born from your parents, why are your parents still alive?"

    Personally i like the "If Americans came from European's then why are there still European people?"
    seamus wrote: »
    There's a very valid reason why people ask the "Why are there still monkeys" question.

    It's because of this very well-known image/idea:
    6a00d8341ca86d53ef0133f1a5f4f5970b-800wi

    When you get a summary of evolution in school or college, or anywhere basically, you get the above image. Which basically shows what is clearly a chimpanzee, morphing into a human being. If this diagram is not accompanied with the "common ancestor" discussion, then the person is immediately going to assume that we came from chimpanzees, which in turn leads to an obvious question: Why did we change and the chimpanzee didn't?

    I wouldn't level criticism at the people who ask the question. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm glad that some people look at the image and manage to see a very obvious flaw in it, all on their own. When presented as an visual explanation of evolution, it needs volumes to explain exactly what's being described. But it's typically presented as an description of evolution all in itself.

    Yeah, that classic image creates the notion that there aren't countless 'evolutionary dead ends'. Should be a compulsory parallel line ending in a gorilla too.


  • #53
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    phutyle wrote: »
    Someone asked me that in work during the week. I answered the question, and someone else said "So, do you really believe that we evolved from monkeys?" - as if such a thing was on a par with the really, really mad end of Scientology or something.

    Sometimes the very opposite can happen. Around the time of the 'Ida' publication I was out drinking with friends and friends of friends. Someone remarked, "Did you hear they found the missing link". I quickly retorted, "Well, not really". Cue everyone looking awkward because they thought I was about to turn creationist on them.
    I went on to explain the taxonomy of Darwinius and it's place in the evolutionary tree in more detail. All was well.


  • #54
    music producer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭music producer


    Yes, what could be more illogical than not marching blindly in lockstep with a man (Dawkins) whose book title represents a glaring logical fallacy...


  • #55
    Salma Gigantic Baton
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Salma Gigantic Baton


    music producer wrote: »
    Yes, what could be more illogical than not marching blindly in lockstep with a man (Dawkins) whose book title represents a glaring logical fallacy...

    so's your post


  • #56
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    music producer wrote: »
    whose book title represents a glaring logical fallacy...
    I take it you haven't read page one of The Selfish Gene in which Dawkins explains why he chose those precise words, and how so many people misunderstand them because they haven't read or understood the book?


  • #57
    music producer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭music producer


    Point well taken. But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend. I have found Dawkins to be at times a bit disingenuous/condescending in his caricature of opposing viewpoints, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me.


  • #58
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    music producer wrote: »
    Point well taken. But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend. I have found Dawkins to be at times a bit disingenuous/condescending in his caricature of opposing viewpoints, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me.
    *looks at location*

    *adds to ignore list*


  • #59
    music producer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭music producer


    *carries on with duties of the day, crestfallen*


  • #60
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    music producer wrote: »
    Point well taken. But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend. I have found Dawkins to be at times a bit disingenuous/condescending in his caricature of opposing viewpoints, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me.

    So you know what Dawkin's intended with the title, but you don't accept it? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,812 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    seamus wrote: »
    It's because of this very well-known image/idea:
    6a00d8341ca86d53ef0133f1a5f4f5970b-800wi

    Just because I have a beard and would very much like a spear doesn't make me less evolved. The end guy should be holding a TPS report and a latte. ;).

    I don't have much to add to the original OP except 'Inorganic Amino acids', pretty sure there's no such thing. Open to correction though.


Advertisement