1. Comment #52662 by roach on June 27, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Cool shirt.

Other Comments by roach

2. Comment #52670 by Kimpatsu on June 27, 2007 at 5:15 pm

I want a shirt like that.

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

3. Comment #52672 by Fouad Boussetta on June 27, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Me too.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

4. Comment #52678 by CloudedHills on June 27, 2007 at 5:37 pm

It's pretty cool. Anyone else think that Dawkins should do his lectures dressed vaguely like an Oxford Professor though? Just thinking, just a little formality like in Root of All Evil goes a long way. Then again, if I had that t-shirt I'd wear it every day, so I can hardly blame him.

Other Comments by CloudedHills

5. Comment #52681 by blueollie on June 27, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Yes, please, direct us to those shirts!

Other Comments by blueollie

6. Comment #52687 by Yorker on June 27, 2007 at 6:31 pm

4. Comment #52678 by CloudedHills

If he was an unknown Prof. appropriate dress might lend weight to credibility, Dawkins already has ample credibility. More importantly however, it took place on a boat in the Galapagos, at the equator, who the hell would want to wear a suit there? I noticed on a previous Galapagos thread he was barefooted with shorts and tee shirt, perhaps sans underpants! That's exactly the right tropical garb in my experience.

Other Comments by Yorker

7. Comment #52699 by Enlightenme.. on June 27, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Really enjoyed this, it was great towards the end there where he had to go back to being an a-level teacher for a while, when dealing with the questions on neutral mutations, it's the basic maths stuff with triplets giving 64 possibles, but only 20 aa's plus a start & 3 stops - takes me right back to my schooldays!

Also fascinating was that letter to Wallace, I remember my teacher telling us about Mendel being a contemporary of Darwin, but the importance of his discovery not being recognised in his lifetime, the way she put it was that one of the turn-of-the-century men published a paper, and it was only then discovered that an obscure monk discovered it in 1860!

But I can't understand how if it was 'on record' his work didn't come to the attention of Darwin? Was that in some way because of religion?

And Darwin worked with peas as well!... and his letter to Wallace is in 1867.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

8. Comment #52706 by neverdead on June 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm

This hilarious enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvR5tl5n8mQ

Other Comments by neverdead

9. Comment #52713 by Zaphod on June 27, 2007 at 10:25 pm

That is a great t-shirt. Must find it.

Other Comments by Zaphod

10. Comment #52720 by Zaphod on June 27, 2007 at 11:31 pm

This was a very enjoyable lecture Richard. I'd just like to thank Richard for giving it and Josh for making it available.

The singers at the end where quite hilarious. Well done to them for doing that. I would like to second their sentiment and thank Richard for his dedication to the public understanding of science with the books that he has written. I own them all. I actually have 2 copies of The Selfish Gene and 2 copies of The Ancestor's Tale (1 paperback and 1 hardback). I am such a geek lol.

I agree with the previous poster Enlightenme.. that it was fun when Richard had to explain some basic genetics and evolutionary terms to some of the audience.

Love the critique of religion but I love the science more, so hopefully more science lectures :-D.



Other Comments by Zaphod

11. Comment #52732 by Russell Blackford on June 28, 2007 at 12:33 am

Yeah, the T-shirt rules.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

12. Comment #52742 by Sigmund on June 28, 2007 at 1:24 am

Very nice talk overall but I'm afraid Richard is somewhat out of date with his description of the neutral theory and his answer to the question of timing for speciation to occur with the guppies. Synonymous mutations CAN have important effects on proteins - primarily due to the fact that codons tend to be optimized to the most frequent tRNAs present within the cell and a mutation to an uncommon tRNA codon can affect translation rate and protein folding (and hence protein shape and function). Likewise I had a problem with his description of the horse/donkey and lion/tiger infertility question. Infertile crosses are often based on chromosomal numerical differences rather than slight changes throughout the genome as he suggested. A chromosomal alteration, such as occured with the robertsonian translocation that created human chromosome 2, can within two or three generations sweep through an isolated population and subsequently result in the inability of these individuals to breed with the original population due to unbalanced transfer of genetic material. Small gripes in an very good presentation.

Other Comments by Sigmund

13. Comment #52746 by Zaphod on June 28, 2007 at 1:41 am

Sigmund I totally understand your points. What I would say is that Richard wasn't speaking to a bunch of geneticists or cell biologists. I think the majority where lay people who are interested in science. I am not sure who most of the people on the trip with him are but from some of the questions he got asked that is what I sensed.

Other Comments by Zaphod

14. Comment #52753 by Sigmund on June 28, 2007 at 2:09 am

Zaphod, I guess I can let Richard off with the synonymous mutation point, given that it was an audience of humanists rather than molecular biologists but I still have a problem with the speciation question that has stuck with me from reading 'The Ancestors Tail' where Richard doesn't really emphasize this aspect enough for my liking. There really must have been some point where the chromosome 2 translocation occured that very rapidly separated out the human line, probably within a small number of generations (in an isolated population just three generations would be enough to fix it).
I used to work as a cytogeneticist myself and I would occasionally come across these sorts of translocations in couples referred for tests due to infertility problems so it sticks in my mind when I think about the likely effects of the chromosome 2 fusion event in human evolution.

Other Comments by Sigmund

15. Comment #52773 by Tyler Durden on June 28, 2007 at 4:01 am

Hi all,

The following letter appears in today's edition of my national newspaper: The Irish Independent

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/evolution-is-one-big-hoax-858550.html

Evolution is one big hoax
Thursday June 28 2007

Ciaran Farrell objects to Kevin Myers' refusal to use the term "natural selection". Maybe this is because no such phenomenon exists.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of the existence of such a phenomenon. The Theory of Evolution is pure drivel. It is the greatest hoax that has ever been foisted on a gullible planet, since the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Charles Darwin was a sincere scientific researcher, in an era that knew nothing of the amazing internal complexity of organic life forms that has since been uncovered.

The Theory of Evolution is not based on any science. It is in fact a religion, and one of the largest and most fanatical religions in the world. The crudely manufactured "evidence" that is offered by evolutionists is facile and primitive and consists entirely of wishful thinking.

Every form of organic life, without exception, develops from a tiny speck that proliferates according to fixed rigid steps, of astonishing complexity, to create a single living entity of trillions of cells. The idea that this originated from some mad messy mutation of crazy matter is the height of insanity. Not a single trace of the remains of any of this vast multitude of failed mutations has ever been found.

Evolutionists have the same rights as the rest of us to preach their religion, but let's call a spade a spade. The only explanation for their fanaticism is their outrage at other people believing in a man in the sky.

JOHN LUNDBERG,
TALLAGHT D 24

After you've finished laughing (or crying) at such nonsense, feel free to submit a response to the editor: independent.letters@independent.ie

I still can't quite figure out if it's for real or just a hoax...

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

16. Comment #52777 by CJ22 on June 28, 2007 at 4:08 am

*Bangs head against table.

Other Comments by CJ22

17. Comment #52783 by Philip1978 on June 28, 2007 at 4:30 am

Puts cushion on CJ22's table, don't hurt yourself on his account, he doesn't deserve it!

Other Comments by Philip1978

18. Comment #52784 by Sigmund on June 28, 2007 at 4:42 am

Tyler,
That is simply a letter from a looney. I suspect the newspaper editor just decided to print it for a laugh. Having said that, the general level of scientific education in Ireland and the almost complete lack of rational thinking by the populace at large is pretty awful compared to the developed nations of Europe. I guess that explains the relatively low acceptance of evolution in Ireland. I actually grew up there and left in the eighties and yet I'm always dumbfounded by the levels of superstition I encounter every time I return. There is very little scientific skepticism in Ireland compared to what I would describe as a cynicism that does scientific reason no benefit.

Other Comments by Sigmund

19. Comment #52786 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 4:47 am

"Why is it always Engineers?"

Richard I am shocked.
Try substituting the word Engineer with Blacks,Gays,Atheists etc. Doesn't sound so funny now does it. I really expected better from you.

Other Comments by the great teapot

20. Comment #52787 by Sigmund on June 28, 2007 at 4:50 am

Why is it always black, gay, atheist engineers?
;)

Other Comments by Sigmund

21. Comment #52801 by Cool on Oolon on June 28, 2007 at 5:31 am

Yes teapot, funny how if you change the words, the meaning changes as well.

Other Comments by Cool on Oolon

22. Comment #52808 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 5:57 am

The meaning doesn't change, only the people being ridiculed.
PS I would have typed LOL after my last comment.
But at my age it doesn't feel right.

Other Comments by the great teapot

23. Comment #52826 by maton100 on June 28, 2007 at 6:33 am

Dawkins has got mad social skills. He's got game!

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

24. Comment #52832 by Robert Maynard on June 28, 2007 at 6:48 am

Right, because people choose to be black, gay or atheist, in much the same way they choose to study and pursue a career in engineering.

If you feel too old for LOL, I recommend a :P - it is a timeless disclaimer and appeal to nonseriousness. ... :P

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

25. Comment #52835 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 7:08 am

Perhaps we should change our careers to escape the ridicule.:P ( on second thoughts with my spelling ability perhaps I'll stick with Engineering)
Where does the :P originate from Robert?

Other Comments by the great teapot

26. Comment #52840 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 7:31 am

Tyler
sent this.
"I would like to take issue with John Lundberg. There is so much evidence to support evolution, it is difficult to chose which to include in a sound bite. There is the fossil record, where life starts out simple and becomes more complex. There are the so-called intermediate fossils that link different groups of animals, and they occur at the correct time in history: you don't find fossil birds in rocks older than the oldest fish. We see plenty of intermediates linking the groups in between: Tiktaalik linking fish and amphibians; Proterogyrinus linking amphibians to reptiles; Apsisaurus, linking early reptiles to the group that gave rise to the dinosaurs, and Achaeopteryx linking dinosaurs to birds. These are a tiny proportion of the number of known intermediates.



We also have compelling DNA evidence. One example I like is the Ice fish of Baffin Island. They have no haemoglobin. They do however contain the decaying remains of haemoglobin genes. The obvious explanation: they evolved from species that did have these genes. One final point, every time an antibiotic resistant bug appears, that's evolution!

Dr William Sands

Clydebank"

Keep us posted of responses

Cheers

Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

27. Comment #52843 by Robert Maynard on June 28, 2007 at 7:37 am

It finds its source in the shrouds of Internet lore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon#Background

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

28. Comment #52845 by minstrel on June 28, 2007 at 7:43 am

It's funny that engineers should be mentioned here.
My brother is a brilliant aerospace engineer. He works on the most complex avionics systems in the world and he's damn good at it. Why am I telling you this? {sniff, sniff} Because he thinks ToE is bogus. {sob!} BTW: He is totally unreligious.
I was pretty torn up about this until I read The Ancestor's Tale which devotes some time to the "tyranny of the discontinuous mind". My brother is a victim of his own "discontinuous mind". To him, things are pass/fail, live/die, go/no go; he does not see a continuum between them. It's a good thing too...
Imagine an engineer looking at the specs of a shipment of I-beams for a new bridge or overpass. The specs MUST be within the design tolerances in order for the bridge to be strong. There is no continuum between pass and fail. They either pass or they fail. Letting through I-beams that just barely fail may not mean the bridge will certainly collapse but engineers are trained to observe the discontinuity for safety (and liability).
As a result, engineers have trouble seeing the continuum of evolution in geological time. Type-Three Secretory Systems to flagella, light sensitive cells to eyes, Broca and Wernike regions of the brain originally adapted to hearing now re-mapped to master language, etc.

I have not disavowed my brother nor will I ever tell him what I think about his discontinuous mind. His mind has been adapted (trained) to his chosen environment very successfully. His wife and future children will no doubt benefit greatly from his discontinuous mind. He is free to believe what he wishes, and I'm free to lovingly disagree.

Other Comments by minstrel

29. Comment #52848 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 8:08 am

I am currently siting in a consulting Engineers office pretending to design some piles and ground beams while watching Richards video. If I could conduct a straw poll, I can't do it now -that will give the game away, I suspect almost 100 % of my colleagues neither believe in strange ghosts in the sky nor reject out of hand the theory of evolution. {I know this from office chatter).
Although i do live in the UK not the USofA.

Other Comments by the great teapot

30. Comment #52855 by Tyler Durden on June 28, 2007 at 8:39 am

Nice one, thanks Billy, will do.

I sent this, amongst others :-)

"With regard to John Lundberg's disbelief in the Theory of Evolution (Letters, June 28). Perhaps your contributor would be interested in running as a Republican candidate for the office of U.S. President?"

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

31. Comment #52857 by tieInterceptor on June 28, 2007 at 8:51 am

Very interesting speech,

I found the anecdote about the fish on the pond experiment explained to a random guy on a plane, and he gets all exited about it just to learn that is part of evolution theory... so it automatically fires the religious mindset energy shields, says 'I do not believe in that' and ends the conversation ...

( like saying I do not believe that negative air pressure on a wing causes lift, while flying on a plane...)

very very sad, it makes me feel disheartened about our cause, and sorry for humanity at the same time... how people can disregard reality ... It's like the body snatchers movie.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

32. Comment #52879 by Richard Dawkins on June 28, 2007 at 11:01 am

Several people have been kind enough to ask where I got the t-shirt saying "Evolution: The greatest show on earth, the only game in town." If I knew, I would say. I received it through the mail some years ago, as an anonymous gift. If the donor is, by any faint chance, reading this, thank you thank you, and sorry I couldn't thank you before but you never told me your name or address. It is fading somewhat -- started out black, now grey -- so maybe I should look into how to get a new one printed.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

33. Comment #52892 by Vadjong on June 28, 2007 at 12:22 pm

My T-shirt would read :

4 billion years
of tinkering and
THIS
is what you get !

(read it any way you like)

Other Comments by Vadjong

34. Comment #52923 by Salvatore on June 28, 2007 at 2:22 pm

My T-shirt:

I am clear evidence against the existence of teleology in evolution

Other Comments by Salvatore

35. Comment #52940 by CJ22 on June 28, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Mine would be a picture of that God's Warrior women from the US Wife Swap, and the caption "'Evolved' is a relative term..."

Other Comments by CJ22

36. Comment #52944 by philos on June 28, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Regarding the t-shirt: love the design, too; place that on the front and the Richard Dawkins Foundation insignia on the back. Sharp!

Also (unrelated): Hitchens was in a live debate today w/Rev. Sharpton on MSNBC Hardball Plaza if anyone can find & post the video feed. Excellent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19420245/

Other Comments by philos

37. Comment #52950 by Nails on June 28, 2007 at 4:49 pm

re: JOHN LUNDBERG, evolution is one big hoax.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/evolution-is-one-big-hoax-858550.html

What utter drivel.
I sincerely hope that this piece was not printed in your newspaper.
Such views are totally incoherent and display only ignorance.
Evolution is a factual account of the diversity of life backed up by a multitude of insurmountable evidence.
To ignore this is symptomatic of a closed mind, tainted by either religious dogma or a total inabilty to comprehend anything so complicated as a living creature can have such a simple origin.
I wonder if Mr. Lundberg has any objections to the theory of gravity as Jesus is reported to have been able to walk on water - surley this is concrete evidence of holes in the theory?
Or how about the laws of thermodynamics.
General relativity? I agree that it doesn't make sense to most people but that doesn't mean its not true.
I hope the editor will print a disclaimer before the rest of the world condsiders Ireland to be a nation of intellectually stunted individuals.

Regards,

name and address withheld

Love the t-shirt, I was thinking of getting something similar printed.
Like
"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Richard Dawkins
or the old classic:
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

with either the TGD graphics or RDF logo.
Can't decide.

Other Comments by Nails

38. Comment #52960 by philos on June 28, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Pardon my affectionate comments on the t-shirt rather than the lecture itself; I haven't had the time to take a look at the video and look forward to his thoughts. Sometimes, it's a material world.

Other Comments by philos

39. Comment #52973 by IQHQ on June 28, 2007 at 8:30 pm

The concluding "performance" of "He Remains an Englishman" from HMS Pinafore is absolutely cringeworthy :P

Other Comments by IQHQ

40. Comment #52995 by Downunder on June 29, 2007 at 12:35 am

re Nails#25950 proposed t-shirt slogan "...when 2 opposite....".
No, the truth need not lie in between, nor a little one way. Nor is the true religion the average of all. My answer is that atheists, deists and what-ever-ists, are all mere human intellectuals exploring with human curiosity the unfathomable Universe of dimensionless intellect. Human concepts do not apply to the totality of the Universe, but we want to learn and do some intellectual sparring as evident in all these RD sites. Our basic hunt-and-gather stupidity remains self-evident from always fighting, destrutive wars, not very intelligent on the average.

Other Comments by Downunder

41. Comment #53012 by deviljelly on June 29, 2007 at 2:22 am

For all your godless aparell needs

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist/-/cfpt2_/copt_/cfpt_/source_searchBox/x_0/y_0

Other Comments by deviljelly

42. Comment #53055 by KRKBAB on June 29, 2007 at 6:11 am

regarding Downunders comment #52995- it reads like good critical human analysing at first, but then ends up reading like postmodernist drivel. The "we're such a small and insignificant species that all of our reasoning amounts to nothing more than musing and folly" attitude is kind of dismissive and even arrogant. If all we can think about is all we can think about, then my response is- so what? Downunder's commentary sounds a little too self deprecating to me.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

43. Comment #53058 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 6:47 am

re the letter to the irish times.

quote: Not a single trace of the remains of any of this vast multitude of failed mutations has ever been found: unquote

errr, so what exactly does that mean, what is a failed mutation, one that reversed itself?? If the 'author' is talking about long extinct 'failed' organisms, well a trip to any museum will show quite a few of them.

must be a joke right. Ive got to the point where i wont enter god/religion debates with people (all i will do is answer a question they pose to me) but as for evolution, that one is easy, there are facts and not opinions or philosophy. Im now fairly well armed with responses to questions like 'shouldnt there be half creatures then??' which ive had before.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

44. Comment #53065 by Cool on Oolon on June 29, 2007 at 7:22 am

teapot, sorry if I missed the humour, must be showing my age too. And at least as an engineer you're useful- I'm a musician :P (did I get that right?)

Other Comments by Cool on Oolon

45. Comment #53199 by Newton30 on June 30, 2007 at 4:15 am

Richard Dawkins' apparent slur against engineers has me reeling. (No, not really). But now might be a good time to give my opinion on the relationship between scientists like Richard and engineers like myself.

Engineers are not exactly like scientists, but they have some things common. Science to me seems like an idealistic pursuit: The eternal pursuit of perfect knowledge while always acknowledging imperfect instruments and fallible humans. Every scientific study ends with 'more research is needed to confirm this conclusion'

There are no such ultimate goals in engineering, only calculated risks. If the scientific standard was used in designing bridges, none would ever be built because we could never be 100% sure it would stand up.

Engineering is different because it needs to balance down to earth considerations like tight schedules and budget restrictions with the best possible design.

Good engineering requires critical thought and peer review just like science. But it also requires making real-world abstractions. Creationists jump on the fact that professor Dawkins admits that it is still theoretically possible that God exists and that he cannot positively disprove God's existence. This is the sign of an ideal, uncompromising scientist. However, creationists use this as an argument against science, or accuse him of backpedalling or flip-flopping.

If a 3 storey building had a 100 billion dollar budget, we could afford to check every single stone in the ground to make sure it would not resonate with the steel structure. We could check every micron of the steel beams for inclusions or microcracks. We would be searching for as yet undiscovered elements to make sure any such trace amounts would not compromise the concrete's chemistry. Even so, we would not be 100% sure the building would hold up.

Engineers can afford to make compromises, simply because they cannot afford anything else.


Engineer:
God does not exist.

Scientist:
For all intents and purposes, God does not exist.


Other Comments by Newton30

46. Comment #53216 by retrotransposon on June 30, 2007 at 6:47 am

I really enjoyed Richard's lecture. He makes complicated topics very clear, even to lay people. I hope he compile a series of lectures on evolutionary biology on a DVD. I would certainly buy it.

Other Comments by retrotransposon

47. Comment #53301 by robotaholic on June 30, 2007 at 4:24 pm

I dont' want a shirt -like- Richard's, I want RICHARDS!

Other Comments by robotaholic

48. Comment #160944 by beeline on April 14, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Richard makes a slight but unimportant error (at just after 7 minutes in) about the source of Fleeming Jenkin's review of [i]On the Origin of Species[/i]. He mentions it was from Edinburgh Review, whereas it was actually from The Northern British Review (June 1867, 46, pp. 277-318). Here it is in full:

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/jenkins.html

It was the Edinburgh Review that printed Owen's review, which is on the same site:

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/owen_review_of_origin.html

They're both quite interesting reading, giving a rather uncomfortable view into the Victorian proto-scientific mind, but also the similarities to the 'arguments' (and I use that word quite wrongly) that some of today's fleas rustle up from their intellectual compost heaps.

Other Comments by beeline