Have you ever wondered why are we here? You may find the answer in the following video.
During Richard Dawkins' American tour in March 2009, he gave a talk titled "The Purpose of Purpose". The talks were filmed and edited together here. The content of the talk remains intact, while the editing moves between the different locations and Richard's Keynote presentation.
I know that it matters little to you that this has long been discredited but for those of us in the reality based community, here is what Dawkins said about it:
As a preamble, I should explain that, following the advice of my colleague Stephen Jay Gould, I have a policy of not granting interviews to creationists or flat earthers. This is not because I cannot answer their arguments, but because I have better things to do with my time and I do not want to give them the oxygen of publicity.
On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house in Oxford to film an interview with me. I had agreed to see them, on the misapprehension (as it later turned out) that they were from a respectable Australian broadcasting company. I had no idea they were a creationist front and I would not have granted them an interview had I known this, because of my policy as mentioned above.
The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.
The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time - that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.
Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences - in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did.
The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house. Gillian Brown pleaded with me, saying that she had flown all the way from Australia especially to interview me. She begged me not to send her home empty handed, after they had travelled such a long way. She assured me that they were not creationists, but were taking a balanced view of all sides in the debate. Like a fool, I took pity on her, and agreed to continue. I remember that, having had quite an acrimonious argument with her, when I finally agreed to resume the interview I made a conscious effort to be extra polite and friendly.
"I know that it matters little to you that this has long been discredited but for those of us in the reality based community "
Wow! are you're implying that i'll subscribe to a fraud to make a point? no, i won't. Its Dawkins and his likes in the
"reality based community" that is yet to convince us that the fraud called lucy is a missing link.
Creationist or no creationist, policy or no policy, the question is still a legitimate one.
"A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time - that is precisely what natural selection means"
The last time i checked, natural selection makes adaptation possible e.g white butterfly ----> Black butterfly not Frog ----> Pig. Missing links please, thats what we're asking for. Furthermore, the "answer" he provided in the video is like a fairy tale of a toad becoming a prince with a twist to appeal to the "intellectual" mind. He did not answer the "HOW". Missing links please.
"The conventional picture of
human evolution as lines of
ancestry and descent is a
completely human invention...
shaped to accord with human
prejudices
To take a line of fossils and claim
that they represent a lineage is not a
scientific hypothesis that can be
tested but an assertion that carried
the same validity as a bedtime story,
amusing, perhaps instructive, but not
scientific"
Henry Gee
British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. Senior editor of Nature, the scientific journal.
u've practically dodged the matter in question here. If u think i don't know ANYTHING about the subject, the onus lies on u to proove me wrong. Iam not the type that is ashamed to admit ignorance.
definition:
Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it MORE LIKELY FOR AN ORGANISM TO SURVIVE AND SUCCESSFULLY REPRODUCE BECOME MORE COMMON IN A POPULATION OVER SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS. It is a key mechanism of evolution. ( this definition does not satisfy the Frog ---> Pig question)
----------------------------------------
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will increase in frequency over the following generations (see allele frequency). Over time, THIS PROCESS CAN RESULT IN ADAPTATIONS THAT SPECIALIZE ORGANISMS FOR PARTICULAR ECOLOGICAL NICHES AND MAY EVENTUALLY RESULT IN THE EMERGENCE OF NEW SPECIES. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.
(this satisfies the White Butterfly ---> Black Butterfly but not the Frog ---> Pig question)
-------------------------------------------------
The concept of fitness is central to natural selection. Broadly, individuals which are more "fit" have better potential for survival, as in the well-known phrase "survival of the fittest". HOWEVER, AS WITH NATURAL SELECTION, THE PRECISE MEANING OF THE TERM IS MUCH MORE SUBTLE, AND RICHARD DAWKINS MANAGES IN HIS LATER BOOKS TO AVOID IT ENTIRELY. (He devotes a chapter of his book, The Extended Phenotype, to discussing the various senses in which the term is used)...
i am sorry if am making your blog unecessarilly longer by repeating this link i'd like u to visit. I think it'll put somethings in perspective
http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=589
recce is right. The natural selection BULLSHIT like Noah's is just that BULLSHIT. You can't come up with a pig from a butterfly. A butterfly will not, I repeat will not, even through billions and billions of years through natural selection or through survial of the fitest which is from Charles Darwin is plain BULLSHIT like you say is the same from Noah. The theory of evolution might work through other species and have adapted through time, but there is no way a butterfly can become a pig.
Like you say about Noah, I say that Dawkins stuff is utter BULLSHIT too! Even much worse than Noah's :)
This is also BULLSHIT like you say about Noah! How can a monkey(even through time and Natural selection and other BULLSHITS you and the idiot Dawkins can add), cannot prove or show otherwise that humans came from a monkey or group of monkeys through the ages. If that were the case, then Noah was a monkey!!!
@recce,
Don't waste your time with Tomas, he has blocked that site in his brain. He will not visit it because you could be right and his idol(idiot one at that Dawkins) would/could be wrong and that is not right in Tomas' eyes :(
@Tomas
"Well I think you are right on this. But NOBODY claims that."
How about a pig origating from a substance less complex than a saliva (let alone the origin of the substance). At least that is what your Dawkins believes.
@monkey--->human
"...cannot prove or show otherwise that humans came from a monkey or group of monkeys through the ages."
the "missing link" between a monkey and a white man like Dawkins/Tomas is a poor African negro. Their are white monkeys in some parts of the world, i think the less absurd thing they should do is to trace their origin from this white monkeys :)
"Don't waste your time with Tomas, he has blocked that site in his brain. He will not visit it because you could be right and his idol(idiot one at that Dawkins) would/could be wrong and that is not right in Tomas' eyes :( "
