The Selfish Gene Theory

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I have seen two or three examples (on another forum) where people have successfully defended and modified their idea, and then on to get it published. So it is not impossible.

This is always the ultimate goal of our Speculations section. We have a process for moving a thread from Speculations into the appropriate mainstream section, but nobody can ever meet the requirements. The maths are usually the missing link.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, SamCogar said:

 Oh my, now I understand what my problem is, …. and that is that “mainstream science” is not to be “questioned”, …….. but only to be “queried” by those such as undergraduates who are “prepping” themselves for “testing” in/of their enrolled subject matter.

 

Iffen one “departs” from the orthodox theories that define the “subject” being studied, then they will surely be given a “failing” grade.

Obviously the overwhelming evidence shows your emotional rant to be just that. The incumbent theories that are "mainstream,"  are mainstream because the have run the gauntlet so to speak, and have come out the other side successfully. Why do you believe your own hypotheticals should be treated any different?

[swansont]

On 8/1/2018 at 1:46 PM, SamCogar said:

Oh my, now I understand what my problem is, …. and that is that “mainstream science” is not to be “questioned”, …….. but only to be “queried” by those such as undergraduates who are “prepping” themselves for “testing” in/of their enrolled subject matter.  

!

Moderator Note

You are being obtuse, and I hinted that you should not to litigate these issues in the thread. As the subtlety was lost on you: stop going off-topic.

 

[CharonY]

On 8/1/2018 at 7:47 AM, SamCogar said:

You are talking "trash", …..CharonY

Been there, ….. dun that, …… to wit:

United States Patent US3449735

So, it is weird that you criticize the need to cite literature or existing products or embed patents or publications in existing knowledge. Clearly, your invention was not borne out of an entirely isolated Idea or concept but was well embedded in known functions. That is how science works, too. 

[ZeroZero]

On 17/07/2016 at 11:32 PM, Dlouro said:

I start to read the book a long time ago I think as soon as it was translated to portuguese and I never finished it. For me is not science at all. It's just a crazy theory without any meaning to me. When someone tells me that im a kind of machine operated like the movie Inside Out it doesn't deserve my time. Since that book Dawkins evolved in a kind of crazy evangelic american or a Islamic imam regarding discussion of evolution theory.

To be honest there's no difference between the selfish gene theory and religion. Both require something to control me, a god or a gene.

 

It reminds me about the movie Zeitgeist that I only watch the first five minutes when they start talking about the ancient gods all born in December 25 long time before the month was invented. When you start with a lie ...

 

Can I suggest you actually read the book (and maybe watch the film) before holding judgement. Your comments are way off mark. You need to study more.

[beecee]

Actually never having read the book, I may just make an effort to get hold of it this week. Any best selling book that can create such turmoil among those of faith, must have something going for it.

3 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Not quite sure how I could do better than than I did. What do you want: a page number too? Line number?

Or should I haul Prof Weinberg over here to verify what he said?

• Quote

  Evidently, Steven Weinberg -- and countless others besides -- does not share your opinion. Haven't we been through this in another place?

  Tells me nothing chum. 

[Reg Prescott]

You're an Ozzie, right?

Forget Dawkins and buy David Stove's "Darwinian Fairy Tales" instead.

Now that bloke is smart! Funny too.

[DrP]

Just now, beecee said:

Actually never having read the book, I may just make an effort to get hold of it this week. Any best selling book that can create such turmoil among those of faith, must have something going for it.

It is quite an old book...  I read his (most recent?) book The God Delusion a year or two ago, shortly after changing my status from Christian to atheist.  It quotes his previous books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker several times. I enjoyed it and it seemed to flow pretty easily and laid out the 'god is a myth' argument pretty well - EVERY rebuttal I have seen of his books or of quotes from it have been total misunderstandings about what was written or of the science around it....  maybe innocently, but I fail to see how some can take what the man writes and skew it so badly.

The God Delusion  -  get that one. So far nothing in it has been adequately challenged by anyone of any understanding.

 

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

In the following link to Richard Dawkins' quotes, the word "truth" appears 17 times. Apparently he does not share your opinion either. 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

 

Quote

 

 No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

 

Quote

It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?

Quote

 Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading. And that is what is so exciting for me

What is true is the "world view" 

Quote

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

Quote

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Thanls for that link Reg...Abrasive or not in his mannerisms, your silly denials and/or half denials, has convinced me to get his relevant book. Thanks again.

[Reg Prescott]

"What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true,"

 

This comment is so astonishingly stupid and naive that... well, that's Dawkins for you.

What exactly is Dawkins claiming: every claim ever made by every scientist in every time and every place is true? Or what?

The mind boggles!

Enjoy the book. Think I'd rather read Harry Potter.

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, DrP said:

It is quite an old book...  I read his (most recent?) book The God Delusion a year or two ago, shortly after changing my status from Christian to atheist. 

 

You're a rare bird you are in becoming atheist so late in ones life.  You are no stuck-the-mud.

[DrP]

14 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Cough splutter!!! Get "The Devil's Delusion" by David Berlinski -- written precisely to combat the absurdities of Dawkins/Harris/Dennett et al.

 

I'll take a look...   Although someone else told me to read it - I looked at some reviews and it had been laughed at over and over by critics as totally misunderstanding Dawkins and taking him out of context and even making stuff up at pretty much EVET turn in it.  Dawkins does none of that - he presents science and discussion that seems very hard to disagree with.  There was a you tube video that took on the points made in that book one by one and totally ridiculed them. Are you SURE you want me to read that book?

 

[DrP]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

You're a rare bird you are in becoming atheist so late in ones life.  You are no stuck-the-mud.

It isn't easy when it has been your whole life. I see how people double down and stick to their guns - I was the same (sorta).

[beecee]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

I

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

I'll take a look...   Although someone else told me to read it - I looked at some reviews and it had been laughed at over and over by critics as totally misunderstanding Dawkins and taking him out of context and even making stuff up at pretty much EVET turn in it.  Dawkins does none of that - he presents science and discussion that seems very hard to disagree with.  There was a you tube video that took on the points made in that book one by one and totally ridiculed them. Are you SURE you want me to read that book?

 

 

 

That is exactly what Reg has done in at least three threads so far.....quotes out of context, total misinterpretations, and just plain old porky pies! 

[DirtyChai]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

Dawkins does none of that - he presents science and discussion that seems very hard to disagree with.

Dawkins practically starts out bitching about people that have infinite definitions of God, then he essentially creates his own conflated definition of God and bashes the hell out of him - and then everyone is like ohhhhh, ahhhhh.  Easy money.

I like Dawkins when he just sticks with what he knows. . .

[Reg Prescott]

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

I'll take a look...   Although someone else told me to read it - I looked at some reviews and it had been laughed at over and over by critics as totally misunderstanding Dawkins and taking him out of context and even making stuff up at pretty much EVET turn in it.  Dawkins does none of that - he presents science and discussion that seems very hard to disagree with.  There was a you tube video that took on the points made in that book one by one and totally ridiculed them. Are you SURE you want me to read that book?

Up to you, friend. It's always healthy, I think, to see things from another perspective.

I've read Dawkins and Berlinski both: in comparison Dawkins is a mental midget (in my useless opinion LOL)

I said on the previous page:

Quote

 

So is it true that mainstream science is "questioned all the time"? I don't think so. This is seen most starkly in the case of evolutionary theory (ET). Richard Dawkins -- him again -- is on record for claiming that to question evolution, one must be either "ignorant, stupid, insane, or... [wait for it] wicked".

This is nonsense, of course. I could name several (non-religious) first rate thinkers who have expressed skepticism over the regnant neo-Darwinian hegemony. The reaction is invariably savage, to an almost staggering degree. The dissenter will be misrepresented (usually as a Creationist), ridiculed, and finally silenced. 

What Dawkins might have said instead is "Any ET skeptic will be portrayed as ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked".

 

 

Of course, any book attacking mainstream Darwinian orthodoxy is gonna get hammered. Let's not be naive. This is a foregone conclusion even before it hits the press. All the usual crap ("The book contains factual errors", "He doesn't understand biology", etc., etc., blah blah)

P.S. Berlinski is one of these "first rate thinkers" I mentioned.

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

I've invalidated most of your faith based claims so far and this is another.

Dude, you can't seem to get it into your head that I'm not religious. Remember what I said about misrepresentation?

Ok, then, for the record, I couldn't give a flying f**k about God.

Happy now?

Oops. I hear thunder.....

[beecee]

The most telling fact re Reg's apparent mistrust/denial/misinterpretation/obtuseness re the theory of evolution, is that the Catholic church has even recognised it, along with the BB...which then obviously puts a total new light on that mythical book they call the bible. Of course though then they fall back to there "god of the gaps" faith based explanation.

The words of Pope Franky

Quote

“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/28/pope-francis-comments-on-evolution-and-the-catholic-church

Edited October 9, 2018 by beecee

[DrP]

9 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Of course, any book attacking mainstream Darwinian orthodoxy is gonna get hammered. Let's not be naive. This is a foregone conclusion even before it hits the press. All the usual crap ("The book contains factual errors", "He doesn't understand biology", etc., etc., blah blah)

P.S. Berlinski is one of these "first rate thinkers" I mentioned.

...  not in the vids I saw  -  every attack on Dawkins' book was worse than schoolboy error, misunderstanding of what he said, stuff taken out of context and just plain fiction   -  maybe it was a different book with a similar title. :-/

 

46 minutes ago, beecee said:

Thanks for that. I often compare Dawkins and Sagan...While I appreciate both, I see Dawkins a bit abrasive then the docile calm manners of Sagan whose books I have many of. Thanks again.

I like his down to earth no nonsense style. Maybe it is time to stop treading on the eggshells of the deluded and call out their imaginations for what they are - fictional delusions.  I haven't studied Sagan in the same way  -  I used to be religious so avoided him as a trickster of the devil, lol.  I found him a bit smarmy. I did look at some vids of him speaking a little while back though and couldn't really fault them. It is different as to what you pick up on and take in when you are on the other side of the discussion - I was for decades.

 

12 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

Dawkins practically starts out bitching about people that have infinite definitions of God, then he essentially creates his own conflated definition of God and bashes the hell out of him

Yea - basically he says there is no (or extremely poor) evidences for any of them, what ever definition put forward by any of the mainstream religions.  

Edited October 9, 2018 by DrP

[DirtyChai]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

the Catholic church has even recognised it, along with the BB...

No need to do that.  Accepting the Catholic Church's endorsement just makes you look desperate. . .

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Of course, any book attacking mainstream Darwinian orthodoxy is gonna get hammered. Let's not be naive. This is a foregone conclusion even before it hits the press. All the usual crap ("The book contains factual errors", "He doesn't understand biology", etc., etc., blah blah)...

Of course it will. Just as Darwinian or any other mainstream theory also needed to run the gauntlet. The trouble with yourself and your obvious distrust for mainstream science is that you cannot invalidate or predict more then the incumbent.

Now again, if the theory of the evolution of life is not near certain, what do you propose. Please for once be upfront.

So far in your short time here, you have taken me to task for criticising god botherers, doubting the scientific method and its foundations, the theory of evolution and probably something else that slips my mind at this time. And you tell me you aint a god botherer?  

[Reg Prescott]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

...  not in the vids I saw  -  every attack on Dawkins' book was worse than schoolboy error, misunderstanding of what he said, stuff taken out of context and just plain fiction   -  maybe it was a different book with a similar title. :-/

Let's be clear, Berlinski (and others like him) may well be wrong in their ET critiques.

But if he is, I'm fairly sure it will not be down to "schoolboy error". You do an injustice, I humbly submit, to an extremely sophisticated man.

As I said, this is what invariably happens to any ET orthodoxy naysayer. Why not read his "The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays" for yourself and make up your own mind?

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

No need to do that.  Accepting the Catholic Church's endorsement just makes you look desperate. . .

Umm have you been reading this thread? I'm not accepting anything by any church, I'm simply making the point that the evidence for evolution and the BB is so strong that even the church recognises them...probably an attempt to garner some respect.

[Reg Prescott]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Now again, if the theory of the evolution of life is not near certain, what do you propose. Please for once be upfront.

Oh, I have no alternative. My own suspicion is that there can be no (non-trivial) general theory of evolution or natural history, any more than there can be a general theory of human history, much as Hegel had hoped.

It was a nineteenth century idea. Darwin was a product of his times.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

Oh, I have no alternative. My own suspicion is that there can be no general theory of evolution or natural history, any more than there can be a general theory of human history, much as Hegel had hoped.

It was and is a theory of the evolution of life on Earth. It is not/was not a theory of Abiogenesis, although scientifically speaking Universal Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life got started. Adding of course the hypothetical possibility of Panspermia.

Quote

It was a nineteenth century idea. Darwin was a product of his times.

Yes, a credit to the man that he withstood all the "hammering and opposition of a society that was greatly controlled by the church, and the telling tale is that his ideas and theories have gone from strength to strength and is now the most certain scientific theory we have and will never be surpassed but aded on to.....a blanket statement?, yep and you can quote me on that.

[Reg Prescott]

Just now, beecee said:

you can quote me on that.