1. Comment #285549 by Ian Bamlett on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 am

Hmm.. I work in sales.

I don't think me talking about the dog eat dog, destroy your opposition world of corporate selling is quite what they are looking for; even if it is in a way very Darwinian!

:-)

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

2. Comment #285580 by Ishruul on November 17, 2008 at 10:43 am

I have no clue where this is going!

Can someone shed some light on the relevance of posting YouTube video saying 'I am Darwin' '

I can't figure out what job can be a good example of evolution. (the perverted dog-eat-dog-corporate-habit is really not Darwinian)

P.S. I also work in sales, so my view may be warped and cruel on this matter :)

Other Comments by Ishruul

3. Comment #285592 by Bruno on November 17, 2008 at 11:00 am

Did he say he would "put up them" or "put them up"? Sorry, I can't help it. I'm an editor.

Other Comments by Bruno

4. Comment #285600 by a non e-moose on November 17, 2008 at 11:11 am

what's the point? this seems stupid.

Other Comments by a non e-moose

5. Comment #285612 by NewEnglandBob on November 17, 2008 at 11:28 am

How many lemmings will do as told here?

I got a small chuckle from this article posting.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

6. Comment #285615 by HandyGeek on November 17, 2008 at 11:39 am

I can't stand these kinds of things. It's been done a billion times before and it's always pointless. I think it make more sense for participants to articulate why Darwin's ideas make a difference. Or what is the first thing you think of when you hear the name Darwin? The "me too" approach is so boring.

Other Comments by HandyGeek

7. Comment #285621 by Ishruul on November 17, 2008 at 11:51 am

Sound like a 'I'm a PC, I'm a Mac' pointless campain.

Still he forgot, rallying atheist is like herding cats...or whatever.

Other Comments by Ishruul

8. Comment #285623 by beanson on November 17, 2008 at 11:53 am

wtf

Other Comments by beanson

9. Comment #285624 by Ian Bamlett on November 17, 2008 at 11:55 am

Oh... I get it.


"I am Spartacus!!!"

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

10. Comment #285625 by Tyler Durden on November 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm

"I'm Darwin and so is my wife!"

(Sorry, had to be said)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

11. Comment #285626 by weavehole on November 17, 2008 at 12:02 pm

"I'm Kirk Douglas' Grandson!!"


:-D

Other Comments by weavehole

12. Comment #285634 by blueollie on November 17, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Tyler: so you are a LOB fan?

"Always look on the bright side, of life..."

Other Comments by blueollie

13. Comment #285645 by Tyler Durden on November 17, 2008 at 12:36 pm

blueollie,

Absolutely!! A timeless classic esp. when you endure some of the antics of the religious nut-jobs these days.

"I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few."

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

14. Comment #285656 by Ishruul on November 17, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Romani ite domum
Romani ite domum
Romani ite domum
Romani ite domum
Romani ite domum
Romani ite domum...

A hundred time please.

I am Enid Gumby

Other Comments by Ishruul

15. Comment #285850 by Disbelief on November 17, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Ha Ha, nice one centurion like it.

Other Comments by Disbelief

16. Comment #285881 by aquilacane on November 17, 2008 at 6:44 pm

I am not Darwin, nor could I care it's his birthday.

Other Comments by aquilacane

17. Comment #285920 by Gwiss on November 17, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Sounds like someone is trying to herd some cats.

Other Comments by Gwiss

18. Comment #285977 by Richard Dawkins on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Goodness, what a load of world-weary, cynical old curmudgeons we have posting here today!
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

19. Comment #285982 by debaser71 on November 17, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Herding cats isn't hard if you have catnip.

Other Comments by debaser71

20. Comment #285983 by Praecipula92 on November 17, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Well, that is quite an interesting idea... it could raise Darwinian awareness, and quite possibly our numbers. Not a bad thing at all!

Also, happy birthday to Charles Darwin!

Other Comments by Praecipula92

21. Comment #285991 by Chris_The_Positivist on November 18, 2008 at 12:03 am

Yes I think we should all contribute, it's a wonderful way for people to show how this brilliant man has contributed to peoples lives everywhere!

Other Comments by Chris_The_Positivist

22. Comment #285998 by Vanpastel on November 18, 2008 at 12:20 am

Comment #285977 by Richard Dawkins
Twinkle twinkle little star,
How I wonder what you are.
[/Off Topic]
Maybe this is not such a bad idea after all.

Other Comments by Vanpastel

23. Comment #286012 by Dr Doctor on November 18, 2008 at 12:46 am

Goodness, what a load of world-weary, cynical old curmudgeons we have posting here today!
Richard

Haha! Touche!

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

24. Comment #286030 by SilentMike on November 18, 2008 at 1:30 am

Personality cult much?

OK OK I get the point. Not sure it's the message we want to send though. I am not Darwin. I have thinner eyebrows, for one.

I am a researcher in evolutionary computation (in theory at least), so thank you Charles Darwin (and Richard Dawkins, and all the rest). But you can keep the brows.

Meow.

Edit: I'm watching the 5 videos on the site. They are quite nice. I may be wrong. Partly because the "I am Darwin" part seems an uncomfortable phrase you "have to" say at the end in the clips I've seen.

Other Comments by SilentMike

25. Comment #286033 by Wulfgar on November 18, 2008 at 1:38 am

what's the point?

what's next? "How Isaac Newton has impacted or influenced what you do?", "How Theory of relativity has impacted or influenced what you do?"

Other Comments by Wulfgar

26. Comment #286035 by DamnDirtyApe on November 18, 2008 at 1:42 am

curmudgeons

That word needs to be used more in daily life.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

27. Comment #286039 by GBile on November 18, 2008 at 2:14 am

I am GBile.

Ok, this might be a little too curmudgeonny.

I am Aristotle, Pythagoras, Plato, Confucius, Maxwell, Bohr, Heisenberg, Student, Shannon, van Bergeijk, Neff, Ohm, Volta, Bose, Einstein, Pinker, Webster, Minnaert, van Allen, Kuypers, Keppler, Galileo, Brahe, Hamilton, Neyman and Pearson, Dawkins, Mulisch, Salinger, Keynes, Jefferson, Boltzmann, de Bye, van der Waals, Morimoto, Rose, de Vries, Darwin, Newton, Gutenberg, Edison, Wilson, ...

Other Comments by GBile

28. Comment #286043 by AllanW on November 18, 2008 at 2:42 am

Comment #286035 by DamnDirtyApe on November 18, 2008 at 1:42 am
'That word needs to be used more in daily life. '

I grinned inwardly yesterday when I sneaked rapscallions into a post.

On topic;
Yes, yes it's a bit 'yoof'. Yes, yes it's a ripoff of the current PC/MAC advertising war but come on people, anything that refers to that brilliant film 'Spartacus' cannot be bad.

"I am Darwin."

Other Comments by AllanW

29. Comment #286060 by NMcC on November 18, 2008 at 4:18 am

At the risk of appearing ‘curmudgeonly’, I must say that I’m more than a little bemused at this desire to elevate Darwin in this way. I am particularly tickled by Professor Dawkins’ almost genuflecting at the mention of Darwin’s name. Darwin was nothing like the person Professor Dawkins, if you take his views at face value, should admire. Darwin may have had ‘the single best idea that anyone has ever had’ (which, of course, is debatable), but he certainly wasn’t the fearless, free-thinking defender of truth and justice and opponent of religious tyranny that Professor Dawkins would almost have us believe.

Should we laud to the sky a man who came up with an idea (brilliant and earth-shattering as it was) but who then, by all accounts out of fear, sat on it for twenty years and was only forced to publish through the promptings of someone else having come up with the same idea? I don’t think so. If Darwin was alive today and showed any of the timid (some would say ‘cowardly’) traits he famously possessed, I suspect that Professor Dawkins, as far as Darwin’s misgivings as to how his theory would impact on religion, at least, is concerned, would be the first to ridicule him. And rightly so, in my opinion.

There were many people who suffered for the cause, and, most importantly, specifically around Darwin’s time. Some to a lesser degree than others. After having published his The Necessity of Atheism, for example, the poet Shelley was punched in the face in a post office in Italy by a fellow Englishman who snarled ‘You’re that damned atheist Shelley, aren’t you’. Braudlaugh,(who was born into abject poverty and as an 11 year old worked as a clerk in an office and certainly never enjoyed any of the benefits of being born into the Darwin clan), among others, of course, went to jail. Yes, Professor Dawkins, many people suffered to further scientific knowledge and freedom to think and express oneself without the goons of the church or the gendarmes sticking their noses in – Darwin wasn’t one of them.

Will there be the same celebrations for Wallace? I doubt it.

Other Comments by NMcC

30. Comment #286061 by Tyler Durden on November 18, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #285977 by Richard Dawkins

Goodness, what a load of world-weary, cynical old curmudgeons we have posting here today!

I guess Richard has yet to encounter DP yet :)

EDIT: I might wait until Carl Sagan's next birthday to post "I am star stuff", makes more sense to me.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

31. Comment #286065 by GandalfGrey on November 18, 2008 at 4:43 am

I always thought my understanding of the English language was sufficient. (i'm dutch)
This was until I came across professor Dawkins... It's like he wants to keep certain words alive and uses them because no-one else does. :)

Other Comments by GandalfGrey

32. Comment #286066 by Mark Jones on November 18, 2008 at 4:48 am

Comment #286060 by NMcC

Should we laud to the sky a man who came up with an idea (brilliant and earth-shattering as it was) but who then, by all accounts out of fear, sat on it for twenty years and was only forced to publish through the promptings of someone else having come up with the same idea? I don’t think so. If Darwin was alive today and showed any of the timid (some would say ‘cowardly’) traits he famously possessed, I suspect that Professor Dawkins, as far as Darwin’s misgivings as to how his theory would impact on religion, at least, is concerned, would be the first to ridicule him. And rightly so, in my opinion.

I think this is a *little* unfair. Darwin lived at a time when religious sensibilities were buried deep into the psyche of almost everyone, including the scientifically minded. Certainly there were a few freethinkers in his family, but he studied theology at Cambridge with a view to becoming a clergyman. His wife was a devout Christian. Some might characterise his apparent timidity more as sensitivity to the feelings of others. He was aware it would hurt people, and some of those people were close to him. Despite generally getting on with Fitzroy, he had often quarelled with him on the Beagle, so he was aware how his thoughts could upset the religiously-minded.

So I won't excuse him completely from the pusillanimous charge, but I think his behaviour is understandable.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

33. Comment #286067 by NMcC on November 18, 2008 at 4:51 am

GANDALFGREY

Actually, the phrase: "He's an 'auld curmudgeon", is used every day of the week in Northern Ireland, especially in country areas - where, indeed, they tend to be 'auld curmudgeons'.

Other Comments by NMcC

34. Comment #286073 by GandalfGrey on November 18, 2008 at 5:17 am

NNMcC

Never been to Northern Ireland, so I never met those 'auld curmudgeons' you mention. But I do live in the country area of Holland, so I can pretty much picture which people would fit the description...

Anyway, I learned a new word today, yay !

Other Comments by GandalfGrey

35. Comment #286077 by Dr Doctor on November 18, 2008 at 5:34 am

I am ... having a cup of tea.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

36. Comment #286084 by aquilacane on November 18, 2008 at 6:20 am

Perhaps I could say "evolution made me do it".

Other Comments by aquilacane

37. Comment #286164 by MedMonkey on November 18, 2008 at 9:00 am

Darwin's experiences have always been lauded as being a shining example of scientific inquiry and how the scientific method can yield wonderful results.
Moreso than being a pillar for fearless free-thinking and standing up to anti-truthiness, he's an example of how one man or woman can have a powerful idea which was born from, of all things, SCIENCE! To compare his sensibilities based in a mid 1800s culture the audacity and abrasiveness associated with the defenders of secular and rational thought who exist in today's culture is quite unfair.

Other Comments by MedMonkey

38. Comment #286178 by Eshto on November 18, 2008 at 9:15 am

"Goodness, what a load of world-weary, cynical old curmudgeons we have posting here today!
Richard"

That's what I was thinking. Someone get the stick remover.

The genius of Darwin isn't just that he came up with a theory, it's that he forever changed our perception of ourselves and how we came to be. He raised consciousness.

And yeah, take this opportunity to smuggle in some explanations and criticisms of Darwin's theory. Nobody said you had to gush on and on about him like he was your personal savior.

Other Comments by Eshto

39. Comment #286188 by MarcCountry on November 18, 2008 at 9:22 am

Speaking as a "yoof" who actually likes this kind of Youtube activity...I think "I am Darwin" is awkard and gives completely the wrong impression.

Agreed. It's like that was the domain name he had, so he had to use it somehow...

Other Comments by MarcCountry

40. Comment #286198 by NMcC on November 18, 2008 at 9:51 am

MARK JONES

Thanks for your response.

Needless to say, I’ve heard all of the excuses before and I’m not impressed by them, neither do I think Professor Dawkins should be.

Whenever I hear that Darwin didn’t publish because of the effect it might have had on his sensitive wife, I simply laugh with derision, and for a number of reasons.

Firstly, she was married to a man whose Grandfather was a veritable libertine, if not an actual debauchee. As I understand it, Erasmus Darwin fathered about 20 kids with some 3-4 different women and was an early supporter of Lamarck – an evolutionist, shock, horror! Her Father-in-Law was, on Darwin’s own admission, a non-believer and so were most of his friends. She was also married to a man whose brother, speaking from memory, was, to all intents and purposes, a dissolute, feckless heroin addict. How, exactly, could she have had her sensitivities assaulted any further? This claim reminds me of the episode of Only Fools and Horses in which Rodney is going out with a ‘posh bird’, and Delboy admonishes him: ‘Don’t you do anything Rodders that will bring shame on our family’, and Rodney replies, ‘Del, it isn’t POSSIBLE to do anything to bring shame on this family’.

Secondly, did Darwin himself not write some kind of letter stipulating that, in the event of his demise, that his wife should publish the ‘Origin’? If so, that was convenient for him; he turns up his toes and she takes the flak. Not much concern for HER sensitivities there.

Thirdly, remember, Darwin’s theory is probably ‘the most brilliant idea that has ever occurred to a human brain’ and it permitted atheists to become ‘intellectually satisfied.’ It also is extolled as having progressed scientific enquiry to an incalculable extent. Can you imagine Professor Dawkins hearing of such an idea - whether in the 18th or 21st century – and being informed that its originator (or, one of its originators, to give Wallace his due) was baulking and was too frightened to publish on the grounds that it might offend the sensitivities of his wife – who just happens to be a dopey Christian! We can only imagine. Though, in fact, we’ve got a pretty good idea.

Without laughing, if Professor Dawkins wants to be consistent, his advice to Darwin should, or would, have been to get a new wife; much like he told the students at Liberty ‘University’ to leave and go to a proper University. As an aside, you’ve got to hand it to old Uncle Joe as far as commitment is concerned; whenever Lenin’s widow piped up with some criticism of Stalin’s policies, he told her to mind her own business or else he’d appoint someone else to be Lenin’s widow.

MEDMONKEY

I made a point of mentioning that it’s important to bear in mind when Darwin was alive. That’s why I gave the examples of Shelley and Bradlaugh to show that others weren’t so reticent but were willing to pay the price.

Other Comments by NMcC

41. Comment #286199 by beanson on November 18, 2008 at 9:53 am

I am Beanson

Other Comments by beanson

42. Comment #286231 by Eshto on November 18, 2008 at 11:14 am

@NMcC:

Dawkins should give advice to a man who's been dead for over a century...

O... kay...

?

And somehow I doubt the students at Liberty are in love with or married to the university, unless there's some weird tradition there that I'm not aware of.

Other Comments by Eshto

43. Comment #286233 by NMcC on November 18, 2008 at 11:22 am

Eshto

That was a joke. Admittedly not a very good one, and not expressed too well or too clearly into the bargain.

Ah well. Thanks for picking up on the most important point all the same - Professor Dawkins' chiding of those 'curmudgeons' who don't fancy Darwin as their idol, in case you wondered.

Other Comments by NMcC

44. Comment #286235 by Ishruul on November 18, 2008 at 11:27 am

I had to look up wikipedia for 'curmudgeon', afterward I had to read again Prof. Dawkins's post. To my disbeliving eyes, I had to come to the conclusion I've just been bitch-slapped.

Still, while I admire the work of Darwin, I won't indulge in the theistic way of praising one's image instead of one's lifework.

I am not Darwin...but thank him for the theory of evolution.

Other Comments by Ishruul

45. Comment #286238 by The Hogfather on November 18, 2008 at 11:36 am

Well, unlike many of the previous posters I don't think it's all that bad an idea. After all, what harm can it do? It's presumably supposed to be a bit of a consciousness raiser and also a bit of fun rolled into one. Yes, saying "I am Darwin" may sound a bit weird but frankly who cares?

Having said all that, I'm not the type of person who is especially interested in posting videos on youtube (never done it and probably never will). But I strongly encourage youtube enthusiasts to have a go.

As for Comment #286198 by NMcC, I really can't see where your argument is going. Yes Darwin did take a long time to publish "The Origin" but again frankly who cares? The important thing is Darwin's legacy, not the specific details of his life and academic career! Evolution by natural selection is obviously the most important (though by no means the only) part of that legacy. It's the power of the idea that's relevant, not how long it took to come up with the idea or how long it took to publish. Likewise, with his wife's religious opinions and Darwin's own views on the subject.

Other Comments by The Hogfather

46. Comment #286250 by NMcC on November 18, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Ishruul

"I am not Darwin...but thank him for the theory of evolution."

Why? If it hadn't been for Wallace, you may never have heard of him. Also, surely evolution occurred whether Darwin 'discovered' it or not? It was simply waiting to be discovered by someone else - as indeed it was, by Wallace.

Hogfather:

"I really can't see where your argument is going."

Well, if you try just a teensy bit harder, you might be able to see that that's because it's not really 'an argument'. It's merely an observation on the proposed eulogisation of Mr Darwin.

Other Comments by NMcC

47. Comment #286274 by The Hogfather on November 18, 2008 at 12:33 pm

NMcC:

"Hogfather: Well, if you try just a teensy bit harder, you might be able to see that that's because it's not really 'an argument'. It's merely an observation on the proposed eulogisation of Mr Darwin."

So in other words you are making a pointless observation rather than a pointless argument. Thanks for clearing that up then.

Other Comments by The Hogfather

48. Comment #286286 by NMcC on November 18, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Hogfather:

Guffaw, guffaw. Er, I think you'll find the 'point' in there somewhere. It's really not concealed. Here's a clue: 'the proposed eulogisation of Mr Darwin' - and objections thereto apppro Professor Dawkins' 'curmudgeon' remark.

Now go away and write that out 100 times.

Other Comments by NMcC

49. Comment #286290 by NMcC on November 18, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Hogfather:

And I'll go away and write the word 'appropo' out 100 times.

And after that, I'll write out apropo 1,000 times.

Edited: So as to show that I need to be more careful when spelling 'apropo'.

Other Comments by NMcC

50. Comment #286309 by alovrin on November 18, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Mockingbirds or humming birds.
An intractably entrenched arse covering govt dept and a loose artist.
OH the absurdity, the absurdity.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/nov/16/darwinbicentenary-currencies

Other Comments by alovrin