Richard Dawkins

Started by DigiMark0072 pages
Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

😂

Nice.

👆

He's dead on.

Absoloute Idiot, Most modern day teachers of the subject and he know something about the subject know that he is an idiot, such as Peter Vardy. 'He who is not even willing to sit and the chessboard and play, of course cannot be checkmated' Fredrick Copelstone.

so, who has read "The Selfish Gene"?

I mean this is a discussion about Richard Dawkins, one of the most preeminent biologists of our time.

Oh wait, everyone just wants to ***** about him and God... almost as though they have no appreciation for how far he has forwarded human understanding...

I don't know if I'd call him one of the most preeminent biologists of our time. One of the most well-known, sure.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Bicnarok-
............. I love the man to death, and I enjoy hearing his views, but he makes himself look like an idiot. I'm sorry, that is my humble opinion. See for yourself.......:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

I don´t think you can bash a man for having a blank, who hasn´t had one during their life especially during exams🙂

heres someones answer to the above question, dunno if its accurate ..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJKZPpH80A

YouTube video

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't know if I'd call him one of the most preeminent biologists of our time. One of the most well-known, sure.

I don't know, I like him better than Gould

the Gould vs Dawkins split is one of the widest in evolutionary theory.

My opinion of course, but I think he deserves his popularity.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know, I like him better than Gould

the Gould vs Dawkins split is one of the widest in evolutionary theory.

My opinion of course, but I think he deserves his popularity.

I was thinking more biology in general e.g. Craig Mello and Andrew Fire, among countless others. Even in evolutionary biology I can think of others who I'd be more willing to ascribe the adjective "preeminent."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I was thinking more biology in general e.g. Craig Mello and Andrew Fire, among countless others. Even in evolutionary biology I can think of others who I'd be more willing to ascribe the adjective "preeminent."

meh, fair enough

I'm sure my love of memes slants me more towards the Dawkins camp, but whether or not he is "preeminent" wont keep me up at night.

I agree with inamilist on that account. I've read Selfish Gene...memes revolutionized the way we currently view evolution and molecular biology. Say what you will about him beyond that, but his influence as an evolutionary biologist is certainly profound.

Originally posted by ushomefree
[SIZE=2] Any one who has spent time honestly studying evolution, shares my views and knows that evolution fails to explain "the origins of life."

I don't have time for this forum, but I saw this and address it.

Natural Selection does not address the Origin of Life. If you're looking for information on it, read Carl Woese's work on the subject. However, as informed as you are, I'm sure you're above information.

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't have time for this forum, but I saw this and address it.

Natural Selection does not address the Origin of Life. If you're looking for information on it, read Carl Woese's work on the subject. However, as informed as you are, I'm sure you're above information.


😱 😆 Above information. 😆 I like that...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I agree with inamilist on that account. I've read Selfish Gene...memes revolutionized the way we currently view evolution and molecular biology. Say what you will about him beyond that, but his influence as an evolutionary biologist is certainly profound.

Certainly profound, but just as certainly waning. He's turned his attentions to other areas. He frequently forgets that.

"Above information"

What an odd comment to make.

I rather like him. I think he gets way more shit than he deserves, as far as I can see he gets treated as a nutjob by many people, while I can't see that apply. In his public appearances as well as in his writing it seems to me he makes very sensible points and bases them on reasoning alone.

The most aggressive of the things people usually call him also don't seem to apply and he clarifies his stances a lot. I personally don't know enough about biology to know of his impact, but as philosopher I appreciate him quite a bit.