Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
The Angry Evolutionist
by Richard Dawkins - Excerpted from The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
CLICK HERE to see more about Richard Dawkins' new book The Greatest Show on Earth
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of "gaps": "Show me your 'intermediates!' " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these "gaps" are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates." We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively.
Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."
In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."
...
Continue reading
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of "gaps": "Show me your 'intermediates!' " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these "gaps" are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates." We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively.
Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."
In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."
...
Continue reading
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
Comments 1 - 50 of 72 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #419465 by cristinabories on September 27, 2009 at 4:38 pm
have to get my copy soon. I'm driving to Charlotsville, VA to attend RD's lecture in UVA!!I am so excited...
Other Comments by cristinabories
3. Comment #419476 by ods15 on September 27, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I have to admit, there's quite a lot of talk about creationist in this excerpt, and I don't know if this is characteristic of the entire book.My biggest problem with mentioning creationist arguments or mentioning creationist at all in a book like this, is that it potentially reduces the lifetime of the book, it makes the book much more involved with the current era than it should be. Even more, it makes it even limited to audience that know what creationists are. I live in Israel, and I've only first heard of creationists when I started following this website about a year ago.
There's no doubt that the evidence is interesting, and I found this excerpt to be overall a thoroughly joyful read. But putting creationists and creation "arguments" this deeply can undermine the book for those uninterested or ignorant of creationism. More so if (one hopes) creationism just dies in the distant future...
I might be overreacting. This adds a strong human element to the story, and, it show exactly what kind of thinking is correct to look at the evidence, and what kind of think isn't, and why.
Other Comments by ods15
4. Comment #419527 by andrew.trapp on September 27, 2009 at 6:52 pm
@ods15: Well I haven't read the book myself yet, but my impression was that it was intended not just as an educational source on evolution, but as an answer to creationists, arguably the biggest threat to the teaching of evolution in particular and science in general.While in the Western world creationists are mostly a US curse, their influence is definitely spreading to Canada, Europe, Australia, and anywhere else they can. I'm a little envious that you live in an area where you only recently heard about creationists, but it wouldn't surprise me if they become a problem in Israel too in the coming years. (Then again, I don't know how much creationism is limited to being a xtian phenomenon.)
I can understand your concern that the anti-creationist focus of this book may date it, but at least here in the US, the creationist movement show no signs of being a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon. They have been an active political force for a few decades now, and will likely continue to be for the foreseeable future. The creationism meme is, unfortunately, an extremely powerful one; I just hope that it is not quite as impervious to reason and evidence that it has appeared to be in the past.
Other Comments by andrew.trapp
5. Comment #419553 by ods15 on September 27, 2009 at 8:39 pm
andrew.trapp: Indeed, in Israel I've heard nothing of creationism because I think even ultra-orthodox jews do not take the bible literally (however they do take their traditions and "morals" very literally...). However, there's no evolution at ALL in the school curriculum, I've really only learned about it properly the last year or so thanks to Dawkins. (I think the general public's idea of Evolution, and mine was, is just the t-shirt showing from ape-to-man...)In all odds, this is probably just a lack of science and good education, and has nothing to do with religion. In fact, depressingly, incredibly little is said about education in Israel, even with constant strikes (at least 2 nation-wide strikes a year usually...), all everyone cares about is the arabs...
Other Comments by ods15
6. Comment #419579 by SmilingAtheist on September 27, 2009 at 10:34 pm
To ods15 and andrew.trapp
I'm up to chapter 11 in the book and enjoying it.
I can assure you that the book is full of excellent information, highly educationally, fun to read and yes he does take a lot of pot shots at creationist, but not just them, he refers to those who refuse to accept evolution as history deniers. Not all those who don't accept evolution are in fact creationist, which goes to show how well their campaign has been working.
Richard goes out of his way to show how false the information is that the creationist is spreading. You can’t do that unless you know their arguments and not everyone does. We who know the arguments may find it a bit silly but this book isn’t just for us, it’s for the ‘general’ populace, those who may not have a clue at all. Let’s face it there are a lot of people who are just plainly ignorant of what is going on between science and the creationist crowd. This book should clear that up hopefully, especially in regards to evolution.
Other Comments by SmilingAtheist
7. Comment #419607 by saur on September 28, 2009 at 12:13 am
Add to my favourits... because of the cool T-Rex fossil Other Comments by saur
8. Comment #419609 by saur on September 28, 2009 at 12:14 am
After a gap is filled, 2 gaps are born.Who made this up?
Other Comments by saur
9. Comment #419662 by megacephalanthropus on September 28, 2009 at 6:54 am
If gaps were a deterrant of being an evolutionist there'd be no willingness for people to be paleontologists as there'd be nothing to discover!Other Comments by megacephalanthropus
10. Comment #419797 by Mr DArcy on September 28, 2009 at 9:03 pm
The "missing links" are to be in the "chains" found wrapped around the brains of YECs. Homocretinus of the first order. Other Comments by Mr DArcy
11. Comment #419820 by DoctorE on September 28, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I guess we could lie there is eternal life for believing evolution is true.. naah scrap that ;)Religion holds people in supernatural Stockholm syndrome, induced by "Nigerian email" from the bronze age.
Other Comments by DoctorE
12. Comment #419840 by Friend Giskard on September 28, 2009 at 11:18 pm
He forgot to mention the gaps between the frames of video. Other Comments by Friend Giskard
13. Comment #419844 by Border Collie on September 28, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I liked this alot. Other Comments by Border Collie
14. Comment #419849 by Nubler on September 28, 2009 at 11:41 pm
well, then why not simply use this annoyance against creationist by letting them explain their system and then picking up on every single inconsistence or contradiction, no matter how small?Other Comments by Nubler
15. Comment #419868 by Border Collie on September 29, 2009 at 2:16 am
The idea that every time a new fossil is found it creates two more gaps and, thus, creates more difficulty in understanding evolution, invalidates what is understood up to that point and or somehow expands the problems of discovery and understanding, is simple illogical nonsense. It's like saying that every time one puts a large stepping stone in the creek that the creek will be twice as difficult to walk across. Besides, like many have said, every fossil is a transitional fossil of some sort. Other Comments by Border Collie
16. Comment #419869 by Frankus1122 on September 29, 2009 at 2:37 am
I read about half of this article, thinking it was very well written, although a little too close to the style of RD, before I checked the author's name.I still think it is well written.
I will tell him so tomorrow if I get the chance.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
17. Comment #419870 by Mbee on September 29, 2009 at 3:14 am
What people don't seem to realize is that every time we find a missing link it fills a gap - thus creating 2 new gaps, that however now means the gaps are half the size that they were! In the case of evolution this means we are moving closer to showing a change from one life form to another by smaller and smaller increments.
The smaller the increments the closer we get to the continual change of evolution.
Other Comments by Mbee
18. Comment #419873 by root2squared on September 29, 2009 at 3:25 am
Actually, everytime a new link is found it creates just one more gap, not two. Other Comments by root2squared
19. Comment #419881 by Patrick McArdle on September 29, 2009 at 4:17 am
I forget who said it, but it always bears repeating: "EVERY fossil represents a transitional form!" These people aren't really fighting Darwin, they're fighting Galileo, who expelled (pun intended!) earth from the center of the universe, perfect and unchanging. Organized religion lost that battle completely, and all else since has been commentary.Other Comments by Patrick McArdle
20. Comment #419892 by dumbcountryhick on September 29, 2009 at 6:13 am
"It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing."Problem is if they did that then they would actually understand evolution and they can't have that can they£
Other Comments by dumbcountryhick
21. Comment #419895 by DrawingYou on September 29, 2009 at 7:13 am
I don't think Richard is trying to convince creationists that they are wrong. They are too bound up and trapped in their faith. They are a lost cause. I think he is trying to influence those who have not yet walked off the edge of sanity into the abyss of faith, where monster gods devour their own children.
Richard is like a parent that shows their child that there is nothing to fear under their bed when you turn on the light of reason.
Other Comments by DrawingYou
22. Comment #419936 by donttellhimpike on September 29, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Just a quick note to those that have yet to buy TGSOE - it's a fascinating read. The examples of genetic manipulation (particularly the Russian foxes) by artificial selection are astonishing, not to mention the descriptions of the relationships between some species of bees and orchids. Truly awe-inspiring stuff. Ok there is some rear guarding to fend off the creationists and there are some (deservedly) cheap shots. However, I contend that once the knowledge is gained it reinforces the fact that the other "argument" is utterly laughable, shoddy, cleaving, desperate, pitiable denial. If this sounds aloof then so be it - at least where the more belligerant creationists are concerned. Other Comments by donttellhimpike
23. Comment #419946 by Border Collie on September 29, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I'm fairly certain that if the creationists deserved anything more than a cheap shot, Richard would be one of the first to provide it. Other Comments by Border Collie
24. Comment #419959 by BeyondBelief on September 29, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I've long been an RD fan, but this seems to be some of his best writing ever. Eminently readable, on-point and clearly finishing one thought before moving on...
In other words, simple enough that we should expect the logic and sense to be able to pry into some of the creationists' tightly clamped clam-shell brains and do some good.
I must get the book!
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
25. Comment #419960 by SaintStephen on September 29, 2009 at 2:18 pm
If your understanding of evolution is so warped that you think we should expect to see a fronkey and a crocoduck, you should also wax sarcastic about the absence of a doggypotamos and an elephanzee. Indeed, why limit yourself to mammals? Why not a kangaroach (intermediate between kangaroo and cockroach) or an octopard (intermediate between octopus and leopard)? There's an infinite number of animal names you can string together in that way.The kangaroach sounds fearsome indeed, especially if it is a common house pest. But aside from the occasional tramplings at dinnertime the elephanzee seems like it would make an excellent companion, and the same goes for the lovable if at times dangerously overeager doggypotamus.
Without knowing the natural habitat for the octopard, be it land or sea, I shall withhold comment.
Other Comments by SaintStephen
26. Comment #419963 by Quetzalcoatl on September 29, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Saint Stephen-
My understanding is that the Octopard is a land creature. It has two methods of catching prey. The first is to sneak up on it, blind it with ink then bite and claw the prey to death. For the second method, it climbs a tree and presses itself against a branch, using its tentacles to catch any prey that pass beneath it.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
27. Comment #419966 by AtheistJon on September 29, 2009 at 2:34 pm
The police who investigated the Nicole Simpson / Ronald Goldman murder had similarly overwhelming evidence. Evidence of OJ going to a specialty knife store... Same actual knife edges found on the victims wounds at the scene of the crime. Blood evidence with DNA matching OJ Simpson's blood found at the scene of the crime. OJ "happened" to suffer a serious hand wound at the same time when the murder occurred (which his lawyer explained as having cut his hand when he broke a glass). At the exact time of the murder, (when OJ claims to have been sleeping) OJ's limosine driver who was stuck waiting for an unresponsive OJ who he was supposed to pick up and take to the airport, spotted a 6 ft 4 inch dark man crossing the courtyard goes into the house, and then suddenly OJ answers the intercom which had been silent for the last 15 minutes. A bloody thumb print (same finger that OJ "injured"). A bloody glove. A history of spousal abuse against Nicole... The list of evidence goes on and on...Yet, left-wing people in America (mostly Democrats, lawyers, and blacks) refused to believe that OJ was guilty... more likely the racist cops of the LAPD were the ones who were framing OJ...
It's really amazing how steadfastly people refuse to accept the facts of pure evidence when there are political reasons not to believe something.
Other Comments by AtheistJon
28. Comment #419974 by Gregg Townsend on September 29, 2009 at 2:59 pm
28. Comment #419966 by AtheistJonIt's really amazing how steadfastly people refuse to accept the facts of pure evidence when there are political reasons not to believe something.Truly, yet, where is the political motivation for denying history (evolution)? Who politically benefits from this willfully ignorant campaign? Seriously, I don't get it?
Yet, left-wing people in America (mostly Democrats, lawyers, and blacks) refused to believe that OJ was guiltyThat's weird. I've never heard that before...me and all my left-wing, liberal, democrat, black lawyer friends accepted his guilt by the evidence. I guess we didn't get the club memo, eh?
Other Comments by Gregg Townsend
29. Comment #419982 by AtheistJon on September 29, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Tuly, yet, where is the political motivation for denying history (evolution)? Who politically benefits from this willfully ignorant campaign? Seriously, I don't get it?
I cannot defend the denying of history/evolution, since I'm obviously on the side of evidence... but I would say that the religious meme's that underly Creationist belief are very political... meme's and genes are part of the political game theory that goes on. Have you ever read Richard's book "The Selfish Gene"?
I've never heard that before.
Too much leftist news perhaps biasing your memory? I'm just guessing... The gallup polls showed a huge difference in demographics for acceptance of the facts / denying the evidence in the case of OJ.
Granted that most white people (left and right) believed OJ to be guilty, but blacks who are 90 % democrat had a rate of > 70% denial rate that OJ was guilty. There were black people who watched the verdict in auditoriums dancing for glee that OJ got off.
Other Comments by AtheistJon
30. Comment #419991 by CaptainMandate on September 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I've made a start on the book (yes it was a birthday present thanks for remembering).
already I'm finding it hard to put down and yet saddened that the vast majority of those who'd benefit from reading this just won't.
still. everyone who is showing interest should buy it and read it regardless of if you feel like he's preaching to the choir. This should be able to become a talking point that'll get past the boundaries of what people refuse to accept/take notice of and once that large portion of people who accept evolution but just never thought about it much have read just how mind blowing the subject is, they'll be the ones questioning why there are so many history deniers.
Other Comments by CaptainMandate
31. Comment #419998 by hungarianelephant on September 29, 2009 at 4:10 pm
30. Comment #419982 by AtheistJonGranted that most white people (left and right) believed OJ to be guilty, but blacks who are 90 % democrat had a rate of > 70% denial rate that OJ was guilty. There were black people who watched the verdict in auditoriums dancing for glee that OJ got off.
But they're not the worst group in denialist terms. Fully 100% of the jurors in the OJ case denied that he was guilty!
Oh, er, hang on a minute ...
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
32. Comment #420001 by Roger Stanyard on September 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Greg Townsend asks Truly, yet, where is the political motivation for denying history (evolution)? Who politically benefits from this willfully ignorant campaign? Seriously, I don't get it?
See the religious Right in the USA - perhaps 20% of the electorate. What they want is their version of "evolutionary theory" and history taught in state-controlled schools because that would stop children questioning their views and opinions. It also helps, in the eyes of fundamentalists, to save souls - one of the key objectives of evangelism.
Those are just two steps towards their ultimate objective of a theocracy, with them in charge. Then the killings start.
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
33. Comment #420002 by Peacebeuponme on September 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Fully 100% of the jurors in the OJ case denied that he was guilty!We live in a strange world where OJ Simpson can get away with murder, and Koon, Powell, Briseno, and Wind can get away with beating a man, even while they were video-taped.
We also live in a world where a police officer can get a promotion after sending a pleading young man back to be killed and eaten by Jeffrey Dahmer, and now it seems one in which French Ministers and Hollywood moguls protest that we should cease persecuting a poor man who made the ‘mistake’ of drugging and raping a child.
We get reminded often that we can’t pin everything on religion.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
34. Comment #420003 by Roger Stanyard on September 29, 2009 at 4:39 pm
The astonishing thing about this Newsweek report is the online comments by its readers. They look largely to be American and there are a stunning number of the worst kind of fundamentalist bigots including those advocating the return of slavery and stoning people to death. Many of the comments would not have been "out of place" in the 17th or 18th centuries. Learn nothing, forget nothing.
American fundamentalists really are a scary bunch, a menance to the world, zealotry empitimised.
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
35. Comment #420012 by AtheistJon on September 29, 2009 at 5:06 pm
American fundamentalists really are a scary bunch, a menance to the world, zealotry empitimised.
Are you saying that European fundamentalists are not as scary?
I beg to differ. I'll bet Ayaan Hirsi Ali would, as well. Probably also Salman Rushdie...
Other Comments by AtheistJon
36. Comment #420013 by Peacebeuponme on September 29, 2009 at 5:09 pm
AtheistJonAre you saying that European fundamentalists are not as scary?Only the right-wing ones.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
37. Comment #420018 by AtheistJon on September 29, 2009 at 5:31 pm
We live in a strange world where OJ Simpson can get away with murder, and Koon, Powell, Briseno, and Wind can get away with beating a man, even while they were video-taped.
Just like a liberal to quote the "strangeness" of the Rodney King police officers "getting away with beating a man" (they actually were subjected to double jeopardy criminal trials and did eventually spend 30 months in jail, so how is that "getting away"??)... but then you didn't bother to remember the Reginald Denny beating which was also videod, and the defendants actually did "get away with it".
Leftists are the scary ones.
Other Comments by AtheistJon
38. Comment #420020 by sdando on September 29, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I read this and it's very good. While reading the whole article on the link I noticed another in the most read column to the right: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216206This goes to a quick interview with Richard called Darwin's Rottweiler (or Why Atheist Richard Dawkin's is so Irritated by Creationists).
It must be in the same issue of Newsweek and is written by the Religion Editor who is about the most irritating and offensively stupid woman I could possibly imagine if this little piece is anything by which to judge.
Other Comments by sdando
39. Comment #420022 by Peacebeuponme on September 29, 2009 at 5:40 pm
AtheistJonJust like a liberal to quote the "strangeness" of the Rodney King police officers "getting away with beating a man"Not really. The only point in responding to you is to highlight your weird obsession with attacking "the left" everytime you post.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
40. Comment #420023 by AtheistJon on September 29, 2009 at 5:43 pm
your weird obsession with attacking "the left"
It's the same when you "liberals" on this site (including Richard Dawkins) pin all the angel-believing, history-denying, religious fundamentalism on those "idiotic", "scary", George Bush following Americans / Republicans.
As an independent, politically, I just feel obliged to point out the hypocrisy, especially when the example of this article talks about a defendant lawyer that reminds one of OJ Simpson's "dream team" defense team (all Democrats) and their race-card of the gaps defense strategy.
Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler.Just change pistol to knife, add bloody glove, bloody stains in the Bronco, and bloody footprint, and change butler to OJ...
Try polling Democrats and U.K. Liberal Democrats first and see how many of them also are evolution deniers. Jimmy Carter is just as loony of a fundamentalist Christian as GW Bush is. I'd guess there's a significant number of leftist religious zealots out there, too. But I don't make the mistaken assumption that all that angel believing stems from the religious left... it comes from a very bipartisan set of fundamentalists.
Other Comments by AtheistJon
41. Comment #420029 by rocket777 on September 29, 2009 at 6:02 pm
The real gap in RD's Darwinian analysis is not in his take on the Animal Kingdom, but rather how he seems to focus on only evolution starting with multi-cellular eukaryote life.There's a whole lot more geological time (perhaps 80%) which is still not so certain and may not be a nice tree structure. In this, RD seems to be missing quite a bit of history. It appears that humans have a lot more in common with plants than some of the other kingdoms do with each other.
I'm not so convinced that we can extrapolate back from the Cambrian to the say, the origin of the first cellular life that has a nucleus citing only Darwinian slow changing natural selection. It seems to me that the greatest show on Earth took place a lot earlier. Once we get to the Cambrian, we have probably skipped over the true mystery of life's origin. And much of this might not follow the same outline that Darwin and Dawkins suggest. It does, though appear to be the best explanation from the Cambrian onward, however.
For the interested, I would recommend looking at some of Lynn Margulis's works on Endosymbiotic theory. She is a proponent of the ideas that modern cells are a symbiosis of earlier bacterial forms which combined, such as chloroplasts and mitochondria. Thus the "tree of cousinship" might have began quite late in the game.
However, even Margulis, does not get into the origin of bacteria (which she considers to be all of one species), which might be an even more fascinating show begun on earth.
(and check out her interview on "the science show" from Austrialia http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2690427.htm)
Other Comments by rocket777
42. Comment #420032 by AtheistJon on September 29, 2009 at 6:12 pm
The real gap in RD's Darwinian analysis
Congratulations for being the first to offer some critique of Richard... most Atheists and scientists seem to offer only a cheerleadering, choirboy, dittohead perspective on this site.
Probably should include myself in that critique... but with the excuse that my education in biology only goes up to AP Biology. So, how can one make such a factfull critique as yours, rocket777. Bravo on your knowledge!
Now I have to check out your recommended reading. BTW. I do recall that Lynn Margulis was Carl Sagan's first wife, was she not?
Other Comments by AtheistJon
43. Comment #420034 by rocket777 on September 29, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Yes, she was Carl's first wife - also note I added a link to her interview on "the science show" where she has some interesting ideas.Other Comments by rocket777
44. Comment #420038 by cerebate on September 29, 2009 at 6:36 pm
If only creationists were consistent in their beliefs, they would have to provide all their ancestors from Adam onwards before they could make their stupid claimsOther Comments by cerebate
45. Comment #420040 by bendigeidfran on September 29, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Comment #420029 by rocket777Cells magicked out of nothing. That's what everyone apart from Margulis believes.
Other Comments by bendigeidfran
46. Comment #420086 by rocket777 on September 29, 2009 at 8:36 pm
My favorite book on origins before cells is still:"The seven clues to the origin of life"
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Clues-Origin-Life-Scientific/dp/0521398282/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254256331&sr=8-1
I don't know about his conclusion/hypothesis (clays) but his analysis of what it CAN'T have been is great. And his Sherlock Holmes approach makes it quite a fun read.
Other Comments by rocket777
47. Comment #420096 by palaeodave on September 29, 2009 at 9:10 pm
[The real gap in RD's Darwinian analysis is not in his take on the Animal Kingdom, but rather how he seems to focus on only evolution starting with multi-cellular eukaryote life. ]Have you read the book? He does talk about this in it as well as at greater length in The Ancestor's Tale. In fact, he talks a bit about abiogenesis, too, although that strictly isn't anything to do with Darwinian evolution.
I personally find Margulis' writing extremely irritating.
Other Comments by palaeodave
48. Comment #420141 by Shuggy on September 29, 2009 at 11:25 pm
11. Comment #419820 by DoctorE on September 28, 2009 Religion holds people in supernatural Stockholm syndrome, induced by "Nigerian email" from the bronze age.Since I get Nigerian scam-spam almost every day, often appealing to me as a Christian and praying with me and for me, I liked this very much. The Nigerian aspect becomes particularly apt for those US evangelists who are constantly soliciting for "offerings". You could also call it a Nigerian chain letter, since recruiting others is also highly regarded.
Other Comments by Shuggy
49. Comment #420176 by AfraidToDie on September 30, 2009 at 12:41 am
I believe an easier and stronger analogy is a simple numerical series. The series may involve several thousand numbers, and you are given many numbers to help derive the series. The series formula becomes quite obvious with several numbers that are given, and over time every number that is given to you fits perfectly in the formula you have derived. Every newly discovered number adds evidence to your formula, and there has never been a number found that refutes the formula. All the numbers do not have to be found to prove the formula. Other Comments by AfraidToDie
50. Comment #420294 by RichoftheImmaculate on September 30, 2009 at 5:14 am
Professor Dawkins, I can prove the theory of evolution very easily. Without the use of fossil records, we can all see evolution in real time. There is a competive nature to brain plasticity! Neural correlates compete with one another. Neurons within the correlate, cooperate with other neurons within the correlate, but correlates compete with one another. And if initiated, and reinforced, the correlates strenghten! The correlates will acually become larger. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor is released, and the brain mappings become larger and synapses stenghten. So, there is a natural selection, THAT WE CAN ALL SEE, in real time, right now, within the brain! You can view brain plasticity as evolution, on speed, so to speak. Evolution is a fact. Case closed.Other Comments by RichoftheImmaculate
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #419463 by Nastika on September 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I was reminded me of this Mitchell and Webb Identity Killer sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20bpV50uZ5Y - interesting parallels between the police in the sketch and creationists.
Other Comments by Nastika