That is a good thing, science is not dogmatic like religion and is willing to revise its understanding to make it more accurately reflect new evidence. That's absolutely a good thing. And that's why science and religion are not compatible.
Uh, okay. Moving on...
I thought I'd share another snippet from Dawkins...
(I tried to include some similar graphs and images that he has in the book, but my apologies if they don't work. I couldn't find many options.)
A social construct for murdering apostates, subjugating women, keeping slaves, preventing stem cell research, etc?
Religions make claims about the nature of the universe that conflict with science. Like Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse or Jesus walking on water. From the view of science those things didn't happen, sorry.
Do you think scientists are in the position to provide evidence of (every) development in the past and (every) phenomenon out there?
I am an eye-witness to a very strange occurrence in one of the homes where I lived but I didn't had a smartphone to capture it [back then] - you have to take my word for it.
Will you accept my story in the absence of "scientific evidence" for it?
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jul 10th, 2017 at 10:06 PM
No, of course not, but that doesn't mean that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster (or the famous Cosmic Teapot) in deep space just because we can't prove that it doesn't exist. Because then religious fanatics should be perfectly free to make up whatever crap they want and call it "truth." So it's best to stick to what we have good evidence for.
No, I likely won't accept it, but you're welcome to tell it anyway. You've got me curious now.
Ironically enough, an appendix does serve a purpose in the human body; not a significant or neccessarily all too effective purpose, but it's there for a reason.
It has it's purposes, actually, but it ultimately doesn't sum up to much.
It's like that one friend who helps you carry a few plates when you could've handled it yourself -- nice, but no neccessary.
Fair enough, I did a little digging and it does appear to be somewhat involved in immune function. Dawkins points out that it used to have a larger role for our more vegetarian ancestors.
I would assume it does, given it also has a limited purpose in acid regulation, though not anymore.
Y'know, I find that the Jacobson's organ is honestly one of the best examples of evolution. This organ is used to deduce pheromones and helps finding mates and it's usually present during organogenisis(a fetus developing it's organs) yet it eventually regresses and a living, breathing human rarely ever has one. The fact that our body seems to create additional organs while developing in the womb just to sorta remove them because it realizes it's unneccessary supports the idea that humans do in fact evolve.
Dawkins makes an interesting observation about paleontologists quibbling about what to call each human fossil because it's hard to distinguish whether one should be classified in this particular group or the next group, and they are constantly changing which category certain fossils are in, but that's exactly what is expected with evolution because it's a long, gradual process and the lines will blur! That's precisely the point! And apparently museums are kind of strict about naming. But I think his point is that the naming system is not very good.
I think this image is about brain capacity (I wish it was better quality), but it also shows the ages...
(please log in to view the image)
And I didn't realize that Darwin actually predicted that humans started in Africa. He didn't have any fossils to go from with any of his predictions and it's all been confirmed.
That was nominated for an Emmy. That specific episode with that video, lol.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
^ Yeah, I've actually been watching that show on Netflix. I only have a couple episodes left. I don't think he's done an evolution episode unfortunately. He shouldn't need to because it really should be a closed case, but an episode on it would be cool none-the-less.
The problem is the episode contradicts an episode about biology and gender that he did in the 90s.
Just to be clear: there has been zero actual scientific evidence discovered in the years between his old show and now that prove he was wrong in what he said before.
It almost seems like he kinda sold out. Embraced nonsense to become more popular. Scary thing is it worked, an Emmy nom. A lot of people watch the Emmy's. Is this shit what we really want to hold up and say is good? It's weird because he will argue for evolution, slap down silly things like astrology, but now he's talking about the science of "feelings" and doing this nonsense.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jul 21st, 2017 at 03:33 PM
Yeah, I think I saw something about that. Well, biologically there are only 2 physical, anatomical genders. But it does seem to exist on more a spectrum in practice because obviously sexuality exists on a spectrum.
It's pretty obvious to see that if you throw out your Bible and Koran.
Lol I mean it's just...it's literally feelings over reality. That is what it boils down to. Science doesn't play any part.
Transgender folk have a 40% suicide rate. It's the same whether you look at pre transition transgenders or post transition people.
Nye doesn't mention that shit, because why would he? Also, do you know how high a frickin 40% suicide rate is?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.