Richard Dawkins- The Root of all evil

[Strayed Wanderer]

I dunno about that, Strayed. I don't see anything wrong with the topic. Discussion of matters such as this can lead to more open-mindedness for all of us. It could potentially change our lives for the better. I think that's a good thing.

Should we really listen to the bisexual, currently albino redhead obsessed dickgirl lover?

My point is proven.

[Ghoti]

As is mine.

And you forgot pedophile. Though actually I've been losing interest in that lately. Odd. Same goes for bisexual, too. I'm getting less interested in guys. Maybe they were just phases I'm growing out of or something.

[TeppicTheBloodLyn]

Oh don't worry, you gave me the change to beat someone in an argument, which is always nice. Even though we didn't argue since i was so good at prooving my point you jsut gave up, cause I was right. And I rock. And I'm hot...

What's your thought on macroevolution then?

Well, even under the definition you so kindly provided, both the example I provided of the Hawthorn fly and the Nylon eating bacteria are examples of new species arising. The Hawthorn flies is the clearest example because they are unable to interbreed with each other without forming sterile offspring.

Another example I hae also just found:

Another example is the evolution of Ensatina Salamanders in the Western United States. One ancestral species in Oregon spread southward and populated the San Joaquin Valley. Once the salamanders had spread south and converged into one area, two non-interbreeding species had emerged. In other words, adaptations to a changing environment as they spread south resulted in enough variation to prevent interbreeding and therefore creating, by definition, two separate species.

That should be some clear examples of the evolution of new, different species rather than just small variations in the genepool.

[Fitz Tayo]

Anybody else notice how there's both a remotely intelligent conversation and a completely stupid conversation taking place at the same time in the same topic?

[Telephalsion]

Anybody else notice how there's both a remotely intelligent conversation and a completely stupid conversation taking place at the same time in the same topic?

No, my eyes cannot detect such things. Only your eyes can oh mighty fitz.

Which is Sarcasmian for 'Duh'

Well, even under the definition you so kindly provided, both the example I provided of the Hawthorn fly and the Nylon eating bacteria are examples of new species arising. The Hawthorn flies is the clearest example because they are unable to interbreed with each other without forming sterile offspring.

Are you saying that the hawthorne and apple flies cannot have fertile offspring, that the offspring is sterile? Then it's not evolution, then it's just like Mules. Horse + Donkey + Sex = Mule
I realized that is the most gross equation yet.

[TeppicTheBloodLyn]

Well, even under the definition you so kindly provided, both the example I provided of the Hawthorn fly and the Nylon eating bacteria are examples of new species arising. The Hawthorn flies is the clearest example because they are unable to interbreed with each other without forming sterile offspring.

Are you saying that the hawthorne and apple flies cannot have fertile offspring, that the offspring is sterile? Then it's not evolution, then it's just like Mules. Horse + Donkey + Sex = Mule
I realized that is the most gross equation yet.

Well, that's my point. Horses and Donkeys are not the same species, because even if they produce offspring, the offspring is always sterile. Mules can never have children. Therefore, since the different Hawthorn breeds can not interbreed without either not getting offspring at all or the offspring being sterile, they are no longer the same species.

[Sarcasm]

Tele: You did not make the m capital in My, you fail.

[Telephalsion]

I had a comma in front, it's still good grammar, right?

[Sarcasm]

Yes, But I purposefully make the first letter in each sentence capital.
Thus you fail at sarcasmian.

[Greatchickenman]

Horses and donkeys wouldn't be the same species even if their offspring were fertile..

[Strayed Wanderer]

Horses and donkeys wouldn't be the same species even if their offspring were fertile..

That is pretty much what defines a species, so logically they would.

[TeppicTheBloodLyn]

Horses and donkeys wouldn't be the same species even if their offspring were fertile..

That is pretty much what defines a species, so logically they would.

Indeed.

[Greatchickenman]

Ok... you're wrong..


a pitbull and a doberman can mate and still have fertile (and angry) offspring but they are still different species. They are still of the Canis genus, but the second part of their name is wrong. It's the laws of binomial nomenclature.


If being able to have fertile offspring makes you the same species that would mean that homo sapien and homo eretus is the same thing, in which case you would be wrong, once again.

[Legend of the Past]

I may be a bit late, but I will now reply about Dawkins' program-

I am biased here. I'm a avid believer of Dawikns' theory of The Selfish Gene. I find it is quiet logical, and rather explains how we act and operate in terms of psychology and biology that have been both proven and actually makes much sense when one thinks about it. Dawkins has his own understanding of psychology and theology, and I'm not surpirsed some people closed the video down before they actually watched it through- you were offended, this is natural, and I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong, or strayed or whatever.

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe in Dawkins not because life was particularly harsh on me or because God has never shown me evidence of his being there. I believe in him because it makes sense. People need something firm, a pillar to believe in, and some will do anything to prove, to themselves and\or others, that the pillar is strong in it's existence, well-based and true. People build their lives around religion and as such will be willing to do atrocisites. Even The Way points to such radicalism- The Guided are willing to slaughter great masses of people to abide what they think The Purpose says, but then again, they don't seem to more higher-seated members and leaders seem comfortable enough in Estrana, no?

Religion has it's rotten sides because it's run by people, people who can and indeed commit bad things. People look after themselves and their dear ones the most, and later on worry about religion. There are, of course, people who are above (Or depending on your view, below) that notion and would rather kill themselves and destroy all they hold dear if only divine forces tell them to- I have no opinion as to these people. Then there's people, mostly Muslims who work for terrorist organizations, who are brainwashed by religion to commit terrible crimes in the name of Allah. These people are relativily innocent- They've only been lured into a few meetings, after that they've gotten into an out-of-control spiral of lies and prayer, which makes them feel like they're part of the biggest, loftiest and most righteous war and journey on earth, and they will recieve the ultimate reward.

Dawkins challanges religion and gets bashed as hell and religion challanges science, but not a word is said. Fact is, people are RAISED to believe that one day Jesus will mark the end of the world and that Mary's body was lifted into heaven. The most amusing example I can think of is this- Adam and Eve had Kane and Abel, two sons, and yet mankind lived on. Maybe there was another daugther, but whoops, I never saw that stated anywhere. Those books were handwritten by people, for people and from the people's desires. God is a good resort for someone to thank, complain, beg for forgivness in order to feel better and to excuse terrible actions upon.

I come from a neutral home- my parents never raised me to believe neither science nor religion. My ideas are my own, and hence I'm capable to embrace either and not come out with my beliefes shattered if one or the other is in anyway proven wrong. My life wasn't based on it, so the shock of it being debunked really won't do me long, painful damage. I come here from a middle vantage point- I don't believe science much more than I believe in religion. In my mind, if there IS a God, he could just as well not approve with the modern-day religion, or not approve with the idea of religion at all!

[Strayed Wanderer]

Ok... you're wrong..


a pitbull and a doberman can mate and still have fertile (and angry) offspring but they are still different species. They are still of the Canis genus, but the second part of their name is wrong. It's the laws of binomial nomenclature.


If being able to have fertile offspring makes you the same species that would mean that homo sapien and homo eretus is the same thing, in which case you would be wrong, once again.

A pitbull and a doberman are the same species. Infact, they should be the same subspecies. Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog).