I'm willing to supply one.
So that Chris can pitch it out? Alllllll rightie then. Odd choice of protest, to my mind.
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
So that Chris can pitch it out? Alllllll rightie then. Odd choice of protest, to my mind.
Wanna see him put his foot where his mouth is.:shrug:
That's not intolerance, SAM. I toss out all my junk mail, too. There is really no difference.
Came halfway through the thread did you? (and not in good way, you dirty fiend)
Related to his oft repeated comments, I notice he never puts his skin in any danger thats all. But he gets some news coverage (have you seen his self destructive lifestyle?) and he's entertaining in his own way.
Just want to know how far he is willing to go to back up what he writes.
So would I, if he actually went out and did it where it made a difference.
Easy to be a one eyed king in the land of the blind.
SAM:
My bad, I was thinking of amino acids and protein markers.
Anyways, for evolution to occur, all you need is the capacity to self-replicate. I don't think this is limited exactly to the structure of RNA as the molecule involved, but I can't think of some other structure that may be used. For instance, computer viruses can "evolve" in a sense, and they are not organically based.
And I challenge you to find an example of him doing so. Saying that there's no empirical evidence for something is not necessarily taking the mantle of science.
Nor is "memetics" a science, it's simply a concept that (may have been proposed by) Dawkins to describe the life of ideas. If he uses his background in evolutionary genetics to refine his ideas, so what?
He's not exactly a Bush supporter, SAM. Part of what the dynamic duo are saying is that we ought not make irrevocable decisions based on faith - but those are still seperate issues.
Saying that he's "full of it" doesn't address the argument.
GeoffP:
But it's not the genes that are central, it's how they are expressed, no?
My bad, I was thinking of amino acids and protein markers.
Anyways, for evolution to occur, all you need is the capacity to self-replicate. I don't think this is limited exactly to the structure of RNA as the molecule involved, but I can't think of some other structure that may be used. For instance, computer viruses can "evolve" in a sense, and they are not organically based.
And I challenge you to find an example of him doing so. Saying that there's no empirical evidence for something is not necessarily taking the mantle of science.
Nor is "memetics" a science, it's simply a concept that (may have been proposed by) Dawkins to describe the life of ideas. If he uses his background in evolutionary genetics to refine his ideas, so what?
He's not exactly a Bush supporter, SAM. Part of what the dynamic duo are saying is that we ought not make irrevocable decisions based on faith - but those are still seperate issues.
Saying that he's "full of it" doesn't address the argument.
GeoffP:
But it's not the genes that are central, it's how they are expressed, no?
Ok, that one isn't even connected to the issue. Quotemonger.
It means when all are deluded, even a slightly rational man is considered a king.
It makes more sense in Indian.
Is that blueprint impervious to radiation?
GeoffP:
Right, there being no specific "snail gene" - just the genes that are actively expressed.
Radiation, to go to what SAM is talking about, would affect the linkage of the DNA chain - there are repair mechanisms, and I suppose there must be a way to speed that process up, but I don't see how that would be able to target a specific gene.
SAM:
No - my point is exactly that they are not, and yet viruses can indeed "evolve."
Right, there being no specific "snail gene" - just the genes that are actively expressed.
Radiation, to go to what SAM is talking about, would affect the linkage of the DNA chain - there are repair mechanisms, and I suppose there must be a way to speed that process up, but I don't see how that would be able to target a specific gene.
SAM:
No - my point is exactly that they are not, and yet viruses can indeed "evolve."
That makes no sense; how do you define the evolution of computer viruses? Do they have generations? Are the mutations adaptations to or a result of environmental pressure? Are the traits inherited? Is there an element of control over transmission?
I believe evolution of a computer virus or an idea (or a meme) may be analogous to biological evolution, but to consider them representative of it is a mistake.
Last edited: