Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

[geo]

geo, a minor matter: I recall seeing that Nat'l Geo cover and reading the article maybe 2-3 years ago? When I listen to anyone say that he doesn't believe evolution is true, I always think of how hard it must be to not to be able to crack the pages of that radical journal, Nat'l Geographic. There isn't a single issue, I'll bet, that doesn't contain at least one article that delves into evolution.

Yep, I was just looking this up. I saw this on Facebook this morning and I assumed it was the latest issue. But it looks like Nov. 2004.

[DWill]

Holy cow--it's scary how fast time goes by.

[Dexter]

Now tell me, based on the criteria of a scientific hypothesis, is Evolution based on fact confirmed by the scientific method?

Yes, this is not controversial except among creationists. Do you think it's a conspiracy?

Ernst Mayr observed, "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. How else except by the word evolution can we designate the sequence of faunas and floras in precisely dated geological strata? And evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation."

Kenneth R. Miller writes, "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Douglas Futuyma writes in his Evolutionary Biology book, "The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."

Neil Campbell wrote in his 1990 biology textbook, "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... and_theory

So, do you want to challenge this consensus, or not? On what basis?

[geo]

Holy cow--it's scary how fast time goes by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVlr24zD_KQ

[Interbane]

You would only misunderstand this if you had no clue how the mechanisms of evolution would unfold. The first man and first woman refer to the oldest known specimens. Go searching for a quote from any of the scientists who discovered these "firsts", and you'll see that none of them actually hold the silly notion that they are truly the first organisms of a species.

Interbane, give it up. You're out of your league when you cross swords with me. I guess you've forgotten my mentioning my major in anthropology at U.C. Berkeley so please, stop trying to slander me as if I don't know Darwin's theory of evolution quite thoroughly. That's just you resorting to name-calling again because you have no reasoned argument to present against my accurate criticism that Dawkins is merely mouthing a truism that is essentially meaningless except as more atheist anti-theist fodder for lesser minds to soak up as if words from above, the atheist's Trinity being Darwin and Hawkings and Dawkins it appears. You can fall for Dawkin's little dance but don't expect thinking people to be deceived by it.

Evolution happens gradually, sometimes accelerated, sometimes slowly, but always along a gradient. A gradient which corresponds to small genetic changes with each generation. What we find in fossil remains are points along the gradient, waypoints on a map.

I was digging up fossils before you were born.

I'm back from vacation. I'm sad I missed this.

It's great that you memorized a bunch of facts regarding evolution in college Sonoman. That doesn't mean you understand the mechanism. It also doesn't mean you understand simple semantics and logic.

There have been many first known humans at the same time that there were most likely no first humans. The difference in the two claims is a subtle one, consisting of a single word.

Your self-congratulatory soliloquy does not address my point at all. Do you understand my point? You may take your foot out of your mouth to answer.

[johnson1010]

Interbane, give it up. You're out of your league when you cross swords with me.

I did think this was hilarious.

Sonoman has not exactly proven himself to be a substantive wordsmith...

"The league of robots doesn't exist. That's just a game they sold for babies!"

"If they don't exist, then why did i have a whole sticker book full of them when i was a kid! Answer me that with your prescious logic!"

Victory?

[ant]

ant wrote:
Now tell me, based on the criteria of a scientific hypothesis, is Evolution based on fact confirmed by the scientific method?

Dexter wrote:
Yes, this is not controversial except among creationists. Do you think it's a conspiracy?

Why are speculating I think there's a conspiracy in place?

Your response is both simplistic and stupid.

The origin of species by evolutionary mechanisms is not is dispute. The completeness as to empirical confirmation based on the discovery of fossil records specific to homo sapiens' "decent with modification" is not a clear, linear recording. Homo sapiens' footprints (so to speak) do not travel back in time unambiguously to the ocean. Are you saying they do? Provide evidence for that here, please.

As I've said before, and it is something that is not in dispute, Evolution is theory laden. Saying so is not the same thing as saying it is strictly a theory. Where have I indicated the process of evolution is not true? Show me.

As with all histories, knowledge of our biological past is incomplete. We reconstruct the past as best we can, with what's left for us to examine - much like a crime scene. We gather as much empirical evidence as we can and create a narrative we hope has enough explanatory vigor.
Historical interpretation is inductive. Can you tell me how it is we arrive at objective truth from inductive processes?

Can we be absolutely certain of our narrative's truthfulness? Of course not. Any bozo knows or should know that, including Dawkins and his flock. Our knowledge, particularly historical narratives is always tentative. Science is founded on the proposition that everything we claim to know about nature can be rejected if it does not meet observational and experimentation tests. Science extends itself into the future because the new data that awaits it and the way that data will be interpreted.
Nobody here in this conversation is doubting Evolution, Dexter. You don't have a Creationist here to decapitate (like Interbane wants to - chopping block comment). I was commenting on Dawkins claim that it's an established fact that homo sapiens' grandfather was a fish. The mechanisms of evolution are highly complex. Again, It's not a clear linear path to the Pacific Ocean for homo sapiens. Not yet, at least.
How do we know we weren't seeded here by one of Interbane's ET planets?

And so what if it was a clear path to the water for us? Does that explain away Him? To you it does, no doubt. And that's fine.
I noticed you listed Kenneth Miller. It's rather ironic that you listed him in your consensus you were praying I'd go up against.
Kenneth Miller is an excellent author, professor, and scientist. I've read his book. Ironically, Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion recommends it. That is how I discovered Miller's work.
Miller is a strong supporter of evolution, being the scientist he is, and is also a man of faith, like other scientists in his field. I thank him (and many others) for his humble expressions on how belief and faith is enhanced by the gift of science.
Miller does not look to "the shadows" of nature to justify the existence of Him. Rather, it is the very self sufficient aspect of nature that enhances belief. I won't get into it too much. God's handiwork begins with the command that both the earth and water shall give birth to life.
It is entirely consonant with an religious, inspirational narrative.

Western theology and its interpretation of scripture is a personal interest of mine. I don't really bother with the Creationist literal interpretation camp, or their literalist simpleton opponents who attack them based strictly on literal interpretations of the Bible.

I mean, like, if you're going to continue to accuse me of being a covert Bible pounding Creationist, like, whatever, dude.

But guess what? Those guys/gals are going to be around for a long time.
Are you on some personal crusade to crush them before they take over the world?
Good luck with that.

[Dexter]

Why are speculating I think there's a conspiracy in place?

Your response is both simplistic and stupid.

Nobody here in this conversation is doubting Evolution, Dexter.

Here we go again. OK, so you do admit evolution is not in dispute.

How else should people interpret your reaction that this is "idiotic," "silly," "bullcrap," "indoctrination"?

You're that upset that Dawkins used a specific example to make his point, illustrating a theory that you supposedly agree with? As I said, the point of the thought experiment was to illustrate the gradual change that MUST have happened based on overwhelming evidence, which you say you agree with.

To be clear, you do acknowledge that you must have evolved from a fish-like ancestor, right? So what's the problem? You just want to be really, really sure that a scientist always makes a disclaimer about getting their dates exactly right? They might indoctrinate people to believe in things that are true?

I noticed you listed Kenneth Miller. It's rather ironic that you listed him in your consensus you were praying I'd go up against.

I don't find that ironic at all. You can believe in lots of things and also acknowledge the evidence for evolution.

But tell me, if there is a unique human soul, when did it appear in the gradual evolution of hominid species? I think Christians are kidding themselves to think evolution is compatible with their story -- which is why so many still can't accept it and it took a long time for those who do -- but they can still choose to compartmentalize their beliefs.

[ant]

You're that upset that Dawkins used a specific example to make his point, illustrating a theory that you supposedly agree with? As I said, the point of the thought experiment was to illustrate the gradual change that MUST have happened based on overwhelming evidence, which you say you agree with.

HEY!! READ MY LIPS!!!

I MADE IT CLEAR WHAT EXACTLY I WAS/AM DISAGREEING WITH DAWKINS HERE!
GO BACK AND READ MY POST(S). YOU ARE BEING ARGUMENTATIVE HERE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AND NOTHING ELSE!

I ALSO COMMENTED ABOUT WHAT THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE OF!

WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU EFFIN GET???!!!

[Dexter]

You're that upset that Dawkins used a specific example to make his point, illustrating a theory that you supposedly agree with? As I said, the point of the thought experiment was to illustrate the gradual change that MUST have happened based on overwhelming evidence, which you say you agree with.

HEY!! READ MY LIPS!!!

I MADE IT CLEAR WHAT EXACTLY I WAS/AM DISAGREEING WITH DAWKINS HERE!
GO BACK AND READ MY POST(S). YOU ARE BEING ARGUMENTATIVE HERE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AND NOTHING ELSE!

I ALSO COMMENTED ABOUT WHAT THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE OF!

WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU EFFIN GET???!!!

Yeah, sorry, I still don't get it.