Dawkins wears many hats. He's a scientist and an author and a communicator. Here he was invited as a speaker to address the audience at the New Yorker Festival. This wasn't a scientific symposium. My point is that he's communicating an idea and it would be inappropriate in this context to walk the audience through every piece of evidence in making his larger point. No science lecturer would do this.
Evolution takes place over many eons, and many people have a difficult time envisioning how the process works. There is no point during the long evolutionary process that we can stop and say, here's where man appears. Dawkins, a master science communicator, has found a very elegant way to conceptualize this idea.
By hyperfocusing on the esoteria, you are somehow completely missing the point.
OMG, I think we're finally getting somewhere. So you're not convinced that humans evolved from lower life forms? Is that what you're saying?ant wrote: It's Dawkins' OPINION that EBNS is a definitive explanation for the origin of Man. It is not an established scientific fact, it is not a testable scientific hypothesis, by definition. Dawkins is disseminating an opinion and dressing it up as scientific fact.
The evidence says that life emerged first in the oceans and we evolved from these lower life forms. As far as I know this is not in dispute in the scientific community, not even a smidgeon. Dawkins, an accomplished and credible scientist, isn't just idly speculating. All of his assumptions here are all based on very real evidence. No scientist would ever describe evolution by natural selection as an opinion.
