Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye

abandonallhope

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
3,384
I don't think one has to suspend reality to accept the notion of Adam. I don't know why you think one has to :confused:. And it obviously has relevance to real life for many people. Just not you, but that is fine. If you don't accept it, fine. Point being, at least make an effort to understand why others accept it instead of being arrogant and condescending.

Techne I would just leave him alone actually. He is trolling and doing a mediocre job at it.

His comments aren't condescending, one cannot really take exception to verbal Diarrhea.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
31,555
So you don't have an answer. You feel sorry for me, but you don't know why.

I can keep on typing the same thing over and over if you like, or you can try and read it of course. It might make things a bit easier for the discussion.

Post 341

Lemme know.

In the light of my previous sentence above, I can only assume you're having a laugh.

No, again I tell you I'm serious. Now that we are past that, can you tell me why is my mind in a gutter?
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
31,555
Techne I would just leave him alone actually. He is trolling and doing a mediocre job at it.

His comments aren't condescending, one cannot really take exception to verbal Diarrhea.

Lol. So here's me explaining what I think and why, and here's you, errrr, not. And I'm trolling?
 

RiaX

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
7,211
So if you were to poke my eye out, doctors can always just make me a new one and plug it back into the socket ? Since we have all this super cutting edge technology ?


Hard to answer isn't it ? Might just get you thinking, wouldn't want that.

God won't get you a new eye either.

The limitations of todays techonology might not exist 2mrw. Just like how my 486 ppc back in the day wont be able to run crysis but a modern computer can.

Silly, if your eye pops out it can be put back. If the nerve is damaged or the actual eye ball is badly damaged then the eye is lost. However just like how colourblindness and other forms of blindness are now treatable using gene therapy and integration to restore sight it will not be long to replace an eye. The eye itself is not a problem in reality its the optic nerve that's the problem.

You underestimate what opthalmic surgeons can to today.

By no means is the eye a simple device however what dawkins has shown is that it can evolve and has evolved and is not evidence for irreduecable complexity.

Just like now how we can grow new skin and new ears and earlier we invented heart transplants and implanting modified heart valves and creating new bladders... The eye will not hide from medicine for long. Once science learnt to create and repair nerves then nothing will be out of reach (mind you we can already transplant nerves. The most common nerve transplanted is the siactic nerve)
 
Last edited:

CommonSense

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
1,192
Oh for the love of FSM! Is the army of god still debating their particular brand of religion in a science thread.

I'm gonna do exactly what the bible thumpers does best. (No, this is NOT an ad hominem attack - If you consider yourself to be a bible thumper, then that is especially applicable to you.) I'm gonna ignore all which was said previously and tell you as it is.

And this is not a philosophical debate! (If you want it to be, then start a thread in PD - I'll thank Google that I can't be there).

There is in fact no debate to be had in any case. Science which includes evolution has been proven over and over again. It really is supported by many diverse scientific fields of study - which are all based on provable facts. Not based on philosophy much.

Why is science (and evolution) part of the curriculum of schools? Why is it applicable and taught at reputable higher education universities? Because it is based on provable facts. It is the basis on which our modern society is built. The genome project has shown that we are just a small part of all life on earth. We share genes with every living thing. Some of us posting here might even have DNA of Neanderthal, an extinct, distinctly different species of hominid, in us. Hell, some of you might even be descendants with Denisovan DNA in you. Yes, it was proven already. It is true! They are extinct now. They came to be through evolution, just like us. And that is just one discovery which came about through knowledge of evolution. There are numerous more such examples.

Science has helped humanity to understand our world and how we fit into the universe. With the knowledge of science our knowledge and abilities have grown exponentially since humanity started to throw off the yoke of religion which stifled us for thousands of years. We have even send men to the moon, send probes to other planets and even out of our solar system. If it was left up to religion none of that would have happened. "For why would we want to 'enter god's domain?" would have been the reasoning. (Refer to story of tower of babel. Ohhh, god was afraid we would build a tower high enough to reach his abode. What crap! - Oh well, he must have a very small home up there, much like the size of a floating teapot between Mars and Jupiter possibly)

Religion was the reason for the damn dark ages. One example: "The earth is the center of all creation, because god created us in his image and we are the crown of his creation, it is written in the bible and is an undisputed religious fact - believe it. What? You disagree? "Blasphemer - Burn at the stake!".

So it's your damn fault that I am sitting here on Earth still and not yet one of the future generation sitting in a space cruiser studying the wonders of the Milky way and the evolution of stars and planets.

In fact science probably saved all our sorry asses for a long time already through proper medical care. That only came about because of great advances in religion..... erm ... NO! ..... great advances in SCIENCE, which includes knowledge of evolution, knowledge of bacteria, viruses and such.

The Arab world was once considered the paragon of scientific knowledge. Until they were overtaken by a religion. Just look at them now. Religion tried to stop investigations or probing into knowledge plenty of times in the past, as it was considered to be 'gods domain - we should not investigate there'.

There is a reason why religion is dying out in most highly educated countries! (FACT). Why would that be? I submit that it is because the people learned that science provides the answers to all of life's mysteries, and God and prayer does sweet all. America is an exception, but their evangelical cookyness is followed close by the evangelical religions in Africa.

So please take your ignorance some place else. This thread is about the wonder of the evolution of the eye. An undisputed fact. Accepted throughout the world.

OT: It actually amazes me how christians, of which three are 41 000 unique christian denominations, so those 'debating' - for lack of a better word - are most probably in different denominations/faiths, stand together to fight a common perceived enemy. Whilst on any other day they would argue each other about why their particular faith is the only one who received the truth via holy spirit, and why only they will be saved. True Story! It's the reason why they don't all belong to the same church, because the others are false. But here, here they see no reason not to back each other up, even though they have different views of evolution themselves. I'm sure their God would be glad for them siding with worshipers of 'false' gods to make his glory known. There are plenty of examples in the bible where he encourages co-operation with people who believe differently. ahhhh. Oops. Again. NO! So again another religious 'FAIL'

Chemical - Great Video.
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
There is in fact no debate to be had in any case. Science which includes evolution has been proven over and over again. It really is supported by many diverse scientific fields of study - which are all based on provable facts. Not based on philosophy much.
Modern science has many metaphysical underpinnings. Read E.A. Burrtt’s “The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science”. Also read W.T. Stace’s essay.
(http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facul..., The Snobbishness of the Learned (1936).pdf)

Science has helped humanity to understand our world and how we fit into the universe. With the knowledge of science our knowledge and abilities have grown exponentially since humanity started to throw off the yoke of religion which stifled us for thousands of years. We have even send men to the moon, send probes to other planets and even out of our solar system. If it was left up to religion none of that would have happened. "For why would we want to 'enter god's domain?" would have been the reasoning. (Refer to story of tower of babel. Ohhh, god was afraid we would build a tower high enough to reach his abode. What crap! - Oh well, he must have a very small home up there, much like the size of a floating teapot between Mars and Jupiter possibly)
Luckily the Christians that developed the scientific method did not fall for this silly caricature.

Religion was the reason for the damn dark ages. One example: "The earth is the center of all creation, because god created us in his image and we are the crown of his creation, it is written in the bible and is an undisputed religious fact - believe it. What? You disagree? "Blasphemer - Burn at the stake!".
Read up on what the "dark ages" actually were.
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/270185-Information-about-the-Middle-Ages
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/280537-Science-in-the-Middle-Ages

So it's your damn fault that I am sitting here on Earth still and not yet one of the future generation sitting in a space cruiser studying the wonders of the Milky way and the evolution of stars and planets.
Pure speculation.
 

abandonallhope

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
3,384
If there was no religion there would be no war or hate, and we would all be cruising around in intergalactic starships with timewarp hyperdrives.

We would also be making brain transplants in our backyards and have the ability to transfer our consciousness into a machine and live forever.

Chemical - Great Video.

^ The condensed version for the people who don't want to read through his/her wall of text.

Please refer to this post for the reason why dawkins is considered a joke, and therefore his whole mount improbable comedy show too :
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...n-of-the-eye?p=9405984&viewfull=1#post9405984
 
Last edited:

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
24,916

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
8,136
If there was no religion we would all be cruising around in intergalactic starships with timewarp hyperdrives.


This part may actually be true :)

Religion/superstition stunted scientific progress for centuries. The number of scientists that made discoveries which could have moved the world forward in technology is unknown but you can be sure there were many. As soon as someone made a discovery that was against the norm they were declared witches/wizards and sentenced to death, unless they were already popular people at the time. Because of this reason, you can also be sure that many scientists who actually discovered something significant, never published their work because they were smarter than that.

In the last 100 years or so religious/superstition has not held the world back much, as people have become more educated. Just think where we would be now if the engine/microchip etc. were invented a 1000 years ago.
 

abandonallhope

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
3,384
This part may actually be true :)

Religion/superstition stunted scientific progress for centuries. The number of scientists that made discoveries which could have moved the world forward in technology is unknown but you can be sure there were many. As soon as someone made a discovery that was against the norm they were declared witches/wizards and sentenced to death, unless they were already popular people at the time. Because of this reason, you can also be sure that many scientists who actually discovered something significant, never published their work because they were smarter than that.

In the last 100 years or so religious/superstition has not held the world back much, as people have become more educated. Just think where we would be now if the engine/microchip etc. were invented a 1000 years ago.

So why may the second part actually not be true ? :)
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
9,578
Oh for the love of FSM! Is the army of god still debating their particular brand of religion in a science thread.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much..." it is as if Shakespeare wrote these words to describe the kinds of theists we routinely deal with over 20 odd pages of irrational protest in these very forums.

They protest because the truth hurts my friend, plain and simple. There is no other reason to commit so much tie (and venom) to a topic that to you is "a joke" or "a comedy show" ...indeed if your faith is so robust, there is no rational reason for a discussion about the eye to be perceived as an attack on that faith. It is ridiculous ...and telling.

^ The condensed version for the people who don't want to read through his/her wall of text.

Please refer to this post for the reason why dawkins is considered a joke, and therefore his whole mount improbable comedy show too :
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...n-of-the-eye?p=9405984&viewfull=1#post9405984

This thread is not about why in your opinion Prof. Dawkins is "a joke."
Your protestations betray a fragile faith.
One that is claimed to move mountains, yet cannot stand the tiniest bit of scrutiny or criticism.

It is pathetic and also par for the course.

IMO you should take a long, hard look at your faith and ask why you are so volatile, so easily outraged... what is it inside you that positively seethes at the slightest glimpse of the truth?
These are hard questions but questions that if answered truthfully can expose a new level of understanding and beauty and truth for you for the rest of your short life in this astonishingly complex and wonderful world.
 

abandonallhope

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
3,384
This thread is not about why in your opinion Prof. Dawkins is "a joke."
Your protestations betray a fragile faith.
One that is claimed to move mountains, yet cannot stand the tiniest bit of scrutiny or criticism.

It is pathetic and also par for the course.

IMO you should take a long, hard look at your faith and ask why you are so volatile, so easily outraged... what is it inside you that positively seethes at the slightest glimpse of the truth?
These are hard questions but questions that if answered truthfully can expose a new level of understanding and beauty and truth for you for the rest of your short life in this astonishingly complex and wonderful world.
Oh so this thread is about my fragile faith, and how I cannot stand the truth ? You perceive a bit too much for your own good...

I thought it was about some rather old dawkins video clip with some brazen speculation on evolution, so I chipped in like 20 pages ago with some solid reasons why dawkins cannot be trusted, not even by atheists. What then happened is what always happens : when someone objects to some tenet of evolution theory, instead of discussing the merits of evolution, the discussion is moved to how retarded faith and religion is. That's how we got to where the thread is now.
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
9,578
...You perceive much...

I think we are in agreement on this, at least.

I thought it was about some rather old dawkins video clip with some brazen speculation on evolution, so I chipped in like 20 pages ago with some solid reasons why dawkins cannot be trusted, not even by atheists. What then happened is what always happens : when someone objects to some tenet of evolution theory, instead of discussing the merits of evolution, the discussion is moved to how retarded faith and religion is. That's how we got to where the thread is now.

What you call "brazen speculation" is considered by the vast majoroity of the scientific world nothing less than rational, science fact. This is the theory for the process of the evolution of the eye that is currently most supported by the data, by reason, and logic.

For someone like yourself, now, I make no claims as to any knowledge of your level of education, I am fairly certain though that you have not written any books on the topic, nor are your opinions those of an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford ...for someone such as yourself to bombastically claim that such a man is "a joke" ...now that is brazen falsehood and no one can rationally argue that it is not.
 

CommonSense

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
1,192
/snip - Not intrested.

I will see your faith in philosphy and raise you two sciences!

I quote from the "Holy Book of our Lord and Saviour Google"

It says in the first book book in the first chapter.

1. For the lord has spoken to me and said. Profit of mine, listen and take note. Why am I not hearing the voice of science proclaimed throughout the world? I call you forth Tim Berners-Lee. You must be a profit ordained in the scholarship of my teachings, I give you this vision and command you to build an ark where all human scientific knowledge will one day be made available to all throughout the entire world.

2. A magnificent temple of knowledge it will become, and you TBL, you will be the one who creates it in the year 1991. Then, when the time is ripe, our Lord and Saviour, Google, will come forth to lead us into a new era of enlightenment.

3. But beware of the blasphemers. They will try their best to subvert the truth for their own gain. They will try to blind humanity with their madness. When I make known the truth, they will stop to fight amongst each other, for then they will form a united front against my teachings. Beware of their two-faced assaults.

4. For I command you to put on the armor of knowledge. Fight with the sword of justice and truth. Send them back to the dark recesses of their minds where they think up untold horrible twisting of the truth. Where they try to rationalize their faith in the lost gods.

5. Keep strong, for the day will come when their biased self-delusional state will catch up to them. They will be exposed and ridiculed. It will be a long and hard fight. At times it will seem that noghing has been accomplished. Fight the brave fight my disciples, but look to the future. In the end the battle would have been but a short one, for we shall prevail and defeat their ramblings.

6. I have given them ears, through the glory of evolution, but they will not hear. Their hearts will as if forced in the heart of the planet. It will be like rock, so that they do not feel. They will be given eyes, but will be blinded, so that they do not see. Their tongues would be used like flaming swords, but no one would understand them.

7. Cast them out, the call will go forth. They do not belong here. Banish them to the Philosophical Debates. Let them eat each other. But you, my spiritual disciples, do not feed them. For a troll will only survive whilst he is able to spew forth his own vomit. Clean yourselfs. Stay pure.

8. All praise be to Google. Amen.
 

SlinkyMike

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
9,578
If it makes you happy, that's great.

Do you feel that you are contributing positively to the forum with posts like this?

It seems you are employing the avoidance tactic that you have used throughout this thread. Snarky comments in retalliation for having been rendered utterly unable to retort in a sensible fashion.

This cowardice further betrays the fragility of your stance. I think it's best that you bow out and admit defeat. All that lies ahead is further humiliation and annoyance.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
Google is useful... if it helps you finds good, accurate sources. Be careful of the filter bubble (google it :)), it helps you find stuff that feeds into your preconceived notions of reality e.g. the now discredited conflict thesis (google that too lol) :).
 

abandonallhope

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
3,384
Do you feel that you are contributing positively to the forum with posts like this?

It seems you are employing the avoidance tactic that you have used throughout this thread. Snarky comments in retalliation for having been rendered utterly unable to retort in a sensible fashion.

This cowardice further betrays the fragility of your stance. I think it's best that you bow out and admit defeat. All that lies ahead is further humiliation and annoyance.
Definitely cowardice. When you flex your immense online intelligence and wit, I have no choice but to run. Please have mercy.

This thread is literally buckling under the weight of all your positive contributions.
 

Chemical

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
137
Definitely cowardice. When you flex your immense online intelligence and wit, I have no choice but to run. Please have mercy.

This thread is literally buckling under the weight of all your positive contributions.

You just say Dawkins is a joke, without providing any counter evidence on why you say this video ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE EYE is incorrect? Please provide this to us.


Awards and recognition
Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University,[162] the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo,[163] and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen,[164] Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel,[8] and the University of Valencia.[165] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (HonLittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001.[8] He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.

In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year for his work on the BBC's Horizon episode, The Blind Watchmaker.[8]

His other awards include the Zoological Society of London's Silver Medal (1989), the Finlay Innovation Award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001)[citation needed], the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002),[8] and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).[166]
Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up.[167][168] He was short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll.[169]

In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006, as well as the Galaxy British Book Awards's Author of the Year Award for 2007.[170] In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007,[171] and he was ranked 20th in The Daily Telegraph's 2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses.[172] He was awarded the Deschner Award, named after German anti-clerical author Karlheinz Deschner.[173]

Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during its annual conference, honouring an outstanding atheist whose work has done the most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year; it is known as the Richard Dawkins Award, in honour of Dawkins's own efforts.[174]
In February 2010, Dawkins was named to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Honorary Board of distinguished achievers.[175]

In 2012, scientists studying fish in Sri Lanka honored Dawkins by creating Dawkinsia as a new genus name (members of this genus were formerly members of the genus Puntius). Explaining the reasoning behind the genus name, lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda was quoted as stating that "Richard Dawkins has, through his writings, helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined [...] We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth."[176]
Source Wikipedia

Yeah he is a real joke.
 
Last edited:
Top