Dawkins Ch 3 - The Primrose path to Macro-Evolution

by KateWild 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  KateWild

  I am 4 pages into a 20 page chapter. I keep getting distracted. I have probably read more than 20 pages of lots of things this morning, so having a busy week is no excuse. I have been up since before 8am on a nice quiet saturday morning, but just could not finish 20 pages of Dawkins.

  I am not giving up, just having another break.

  This chapter is about natural selction. I am quite interested in how cross bredding occurs naturally, if this is what Dawkins means. The thing I have a problem with is losing focus mid paragraph. He is talking about flowers too much, different kinds are named with no apparant purpose. There may well be a good purpose but sadly wasted on me perhaps? I can't see it so if anyone would like to enlighten that would be great.

  I do very much like the point about the big moth and his log proboscis. PROBOSCIS is a new word, meaning snout, nose, trunk in nature. That was good and fun. Dawkins said probably in Madacasgar, there would be a moth discovered that was bigger than the biggest moth discovered. Very interesting this can be logically predicted.

  I think Dawkins prediction of this is very likely, I do not feel the need to go and discover it for myself. I totally agree with him that God would have undoubtedly created such a moth, by this wounderful process of natural selsction.

  I am going to read the other 16 pages now

  Kate xx
• 

  cantleave

  One of my favourite chapters in the book.
• 

  bohm

  KateWild: I think almost everyone here believe Dawkins is explaining these things better than anyone on this forum could. You have before expressed difficulties with Dawkins explanation, only to instantly understand a much shorter explanation offered by posters here. Do you think you not liking the guy so much give you a problem abstracting from what he is saying?

  In that case, i would recommend another book (if you are interested in the subject) or simply reading wikipedia. While it focus on what the theory of evolution says/have discovered rather than why it is true, it often touch the later issue, provide more conten, more references and is guaranteed free of Dawkins voice.

  Just to outline the logic, iirc. Dawkins main point with the first chapters (your current and the previous) is to demonstrate

  1) Artificial selection can (and more importantly, has) create great changes (including new species; ie. macroevolution) in a very very short time frame in a population. The cabbage, cows, dogs, etc. are examples of this.

  2) natural selection is a simple variation on artificial selection, with things like crocodiles, viruses, changing climate etc. doing the "selection". Natural selection too has created changes in a population (the moth, primrose and other examples), including new species (macroevolution).

  Having demonstrated evolution (including macroevolution) is a process that is both perfectly ordinary and occur (indeed, MUST occur) all the time around us, the rest of the book offer evidence how this can be extrapolated to showing evolution has happened in the past and resulted in the large-scale diversity we currently observe.

  The logic is similar to that of demonstrating plate tectonics: first demonstrate the continents are actually moving with respect to each other, then demonstrate they have moved in the past as well.

  I think Dawkins choose this approach because he is also a historian; It is similar to how Darwin originally argued for evolution by natural selection in the origin of species.
• 

  KateWild

  I am having another break to talk about rats.

  It's interesting that there have been 18 hits (two of which are mine) but no atheists are rising to the bait. So I guess you know I am pulling your leg.

  In any case, the points Dawkins makes about rats and tooth decay, are not solid and to the point. I don't really grasp want he is saying about experimenting with natural selection. The church bells and Martian example didn't really prepare me for his point.

  Regardless I know what a scientific experiment is, and I know how to extrapolate results. Dawkins did not show the results of the white lab rats and tooth decay, he quite rightly pointed out the variables in wild rats compared with lab rats.

  What I conclude, with no experimental evidence atm, I haven't read it all yet, is.......

  Rats breed like rats and carry diseases, that bring about epidemics and huge consequences to humans and other animals. The fact that their teeth decay, and their bodies don't breakdown calcium, or they don't intake enough calcium is a good thing from a natural selection perspective. God created rats to have a limited life span.

  Butterfly's also have a limited lifespan, for only one season. I think that is sad, they are beautiful and harmless IMO, so I don't know why that is the case from a natural selection perspective or God's for that matter

  Back to the book now

  Kate xx
• 

  KateWild

  oops two posts while I was typing thanks bohm and cantleave. Morning to you both xx
• 

  KateWild

  Do you think you not liking the guy so much give you a problem abstracting from what he is saying?-Bohm

  His writing style is actually improving a little, the fish point was a nice read, and the points on birds and visual and audio senses was more interesting. I promised cantleave and cofty I would read to the end of this chapter, then yes I will likely read a different author. It's more for me getting to know you guys and your interests rather than liking Dawkins.

  I have got to know you all better. Thanks for chatting its nice

  Kate xx
• 

  bohm

  Kate: Dawkins is only reporting on experiments others have performed not providing a full detail; you need to go to the experiments if you want to critisize them.

  IIRC, what Dawkins claim the experiments on rats show is this (simplifying it a lot):

  If selection favor stronger teeth, the population of rats will adapt to have stronger teeth on average. If selection does not care about strong teeth, the population will adapt to having weaker teeth but spending more energy on eg. growing faster. On top of this it also illustrate some "paradoxes" in evolution such as why rats dont all adopt to growing super-strong teeth.

  This might seem like a very obvious conclusion, but when the basic claim of evolution is "small" adaptions like the above played a central role in creating the diversity we see all around us, it is important to ensure it actually work in practice. Thats the basic difference between science and other ways of figuring out how the world work: In science, as opposed to for instance how the ancient greeks argued about the world, one is not allowed to sit in the armchair and pile "obvious" conclusions on top of each other.
• 

  KateWild

  basic claim of evolution is "small" adaptions-bohm

  No it wasn't obvious at all to me, he covered over this point too much with other details. But it makes sense Dawkins is making this point. Thanks Kate xx
• 

  KateWild

  DOGS AGAIN

  When reading this subheading I sighed. The last time I read about dogs in ch2 it was boring. However Dawkins, writes about Coppinger's findings. I found it very interesting indeed.

  I liked the point about how "flight distance" would have evolved to make village dogs into domesticated dogs. There is no reason to argue with this point. I had no knowledge about different species evolving. I could not accept a dog and a wolf would mate, much less a chicken and an elephant. But same species mating and changing slowly over time "small adaptations" is very logical.

  The fox experiment was an enjoyable read too. Very interesting the point that the colour of the fur changed as the tameness increased. I would be very interested to see the lab results for that. I wonder if the correlation is exponential, but mearsuring the "degree" of tameness probably was difficult to do.

  bohm-if you have seen results, would you mind satisfying my curiousity before I research the actual experiment please?

  Thanks Kate xx
• 

  KateWild

  I have finished. In conclusion a much better read than ch1 and 2. All these discoveries about evolution that I had no knowledge of are very interesting, but do not negate the need for a Creator, or prove that there had to be one.

  As Braincleaned pointed out to me I am bias, as we all are. So I read all three chapters looking for confirmation bias and found it. Likewise Dawkins discoveries confirmed his atheist bias.

  bohm, cofty, cantleave and braincleaned when you read Dawkins did it confirm your bias or change your mind? Be honest guys I am interested in the truth.

  Thanks for encouraging me to take a closer look at Dawkins, I still think he is arrogant and irrational about religious nuts taking over the world.

  Kate xx