|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Correspondence - Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 29. September 2007 03:34
quote:
Arjun,
Interesting to me that you've not heard of [the selfish gene]!
Not heard of the selfish gene? I think I have had a copy of "The Selfish Gene" for nearly thirty years. Certainly "selfish" in this context is a metaphor for the intrinsic property of DNA for self-replication (even in vitro).
I may have read more into your comment than you intended, as I was saying that Dawkins' argument in "The Selfish Gene" was not metaphorical, not that he does not employ metaphors in his argument.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 29. September 2007 07:22
quote:
Richard Dawkins abandoned science long ago to attack religion. Now he is going after politics. Each of his books is more unbelievable than its predecessor. No rational observer can possibly grant him any credibility whatsoever. He has become a caricature of himself. My personal belief is that he is mentally unbalanced and progressively so. It is sad. I think he may come to an unhappy end and soon.
Have you read any of Dawkins' work, John?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. September 2007 20:49
quote:
I may have read more into your comment than you intended, as I was saying that Dawkins' argument in "The Selfish Gene" was not metaphorical, not that he does not employ metaphors in his argument.
The following was the first find of a google of 'selfish gene review'
At:
http://educ.queensu.ca/~science/main/profdev/books/PDBRCT.htm
"Nature follows rules of simple probability..."
That is how I understood his metaphorical title and not a literal definition of the word. Did you take it literally
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 30. September 2007 05:37
I'd rather discuss the book (preferably the second edition) than a review of the book.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. September 2007 05:41
Alan Fox/arjun, like oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, doesn't exist on this thread as far as I am concerned, so he is wasting his time in his infantile attempts to get me to acknowledge his existence.
I will however quote another's view of Dawkins' never ending serial fantasies, as his reflects my own.
"I read as little of Dawkins as possible."
Cyrus Noe
"He that I am reading seems always to have the most force."
Montaigne
"Study Nature not books."
Louis Agassiz
Richard Dawkins, in my carefully considered opinion, is either clinically insane, a charlatan, or most probably both - an insane charlatan. History is cluttered with such misguided souls, many extremely influential for a time. Adolf Hitler comes to mind.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. September 2007, 05:42: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 30. September 2007 06:03
quote:
Richard Dawkins, in my carefully considered opinion, is either clinically insane, a charlatan, or most probably both - an insane charlatan. History is cluttered with such misguided souls, many extremely influential for a time. Adolf Hitler comes to mind.
Good grief!
Comparing Dawkins to Hitler is unworthy of you, even by your own standards, John. Dawkins did some science, wrote some books, gave some lectures. Hitler caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.
Unbelievable!
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. September 2007 12:12
In case anyone missed it, I now repeat that, in my opinion, Richard Dawkins is either clinically insane, a charlatan, or most likely both. So was Adolf Hitler. Numbers of deaths have absolutely nothing to do with it. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of logic would realize that.
Hitler and Dawkins each attracted millions of devoted, rabid followers (like Alan Fox), both lived in private worlds constructed all by themselves, and both greatly delayed the search for the truth. Hitler killed himself. Another evolutionary charlatan, Paul Kammerer, did himself in when he was finally exposed. God only knows what Dawkins may do. Nothing would surprise me.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. September 2007 12:23
I hope that Arjun/Alan Fox is stupid enough to link to this thread at After The Bar Closes. Let us see if he is. I love doing unambiguous experiments like this. They are always informative.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 30. September 2007 14:58
quote:
Hitler and Dawkins each attracted millions of devoted, rabid followers (like Alan Fox), both lived in private worlds constructed all by themselves, and both greatly delayed the search for the truth.
I think I can invoke Godwin's Law now.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic