Print
Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile
by USA Today
Thanks to Gregory Fuchs
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2008-05-08-platypus-genetic-map_N.htm
Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile
By Rohan Sullivan, Associated Press
SYDNEY, Australia — Scientists said they have mapped the genetic makeup of the platypus — one of nature's strangest animals with a bill like a duck's, a mammal's fur and snake-like venom.
The researchers, whose analysis of the platypus genome was published Thursday in the journal Nature, said it could help explain how mammals, including humans, evolved from reptiles millions of years ago.
The platypus is classed as a mammal because it has fur and feeds its young with milk. It flaps a beaver-like tail. But it also has bird and reptile features — a duck-like bill and webbed feet, and lives mostly underwater. Males have venom-filled spurs on their heels.
"At first glance, the platypus appears as if it was the result of an evolutionary accident," said Francis S. Collins, director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute, which funded the study.
"But as weird as this animal looks, its genome sequence is priceless for understanding how mammalian biological processes evolved," Collins said in a statement.
The research showed the animal's multifaceted features are reflected in its DNA with a mix of genes that crosses different classifications of animals, said Jenny Graves, an Australian National University genomics expert who co-wrote the paper.
"What we found was the genome, just like the animal, is an amazing amalgam of reptilian and mammal characteristics with quite a few unique platypus characteristics as well," she told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
Scientists believe all mammals evolved from reptiles, and the animals that became platypuses and those that became humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, including the pain-causing poison that males can use to ward off mating rivals, Graves said.
More than 100 scientists from the United States, Australia, Japan and other nations took part in the research, using DNA collected from a female platypus named Glennie.
Their work adds to the growing list of animals whose genetic makeup has been unraveled.
By comparing platypus genes to those of humans and other mammals, scientists hope to fill in gaps in knowledge about mammals' evolution and better identify certain species' specific traits.
Des Cooper, an evolutionary biologist at the University of New South Wales who did not take part in the research, said it represented a big step forward in the world's knowledge of mammals.
"Platypuses are often thought of as primitive because they lay eggs," Cooper said. "This paper demonstrates there is a mixture of characters, which they share with other mammals, and of highly specialized attributes."
Graves said the research contained some surprises, such as the conclusion that genes which determine sex in a platypus are similar to those of a bird, not a mammal. Researchers also found genes that indicate platypuses — which rely on electrosensory receptors in their bills to navigate as they rummage with closed eyes in waterways — may also be able to smell underwater.
Unique to Australia, the platypus has confounded observers for centuries. Aboriginal legend explained it as the offspring of a duck and an amorous water rat. When the British Museum received its first specimen in 1798, zoologist George Shaw was so dubious he tried to cut the pelt with scissors to make sure the bill had not been stitched on by a taxidermist.
Platypuses live in the wild along most of Australia's east coast. Their numbers are not accurately known because they are notoriously shy. Hunted for years for their pelts, they have been protected since the early 1900s and are not considered to be endangered, though scientists say their habitat is vulnerable to human development.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2008-05-08-platypus-genetic-map_N.htm
Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile
By Rohan Sullivan, Associated Press
SYDNEY, Australia — Scientists said they have mapped the genetic makeup of the platypus — one of nature's strangest animals with a bill like a duck's, a mammal's fur and snake-like venom.
The researchers, whose analysis of the platypus genome was published Thursday in the journal Nature, said it could help explain how mammals, including humans, evolved from reptiles millions of years ago.
The platypus is classed as a mammal because it has fur and feeds its young with milk. It flaps a beaver-like tail. But it also has bird and reptile features — a duck-like bill and webbed feet, and lives mostly underwater. Males have venom-filled spurs on their heels.
"At first glance, the platypus appears as if it was the result of an evolutionary accident," said Francis S. Collins, director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute, which funded the study.
"But as weird as this animal looks, its genome sequence is priceless for understanding how mammalian biological processes evolved," Collins said in a statement.
The research showed the animal's multifaceted features are reflected in its DNA with a mix of genes that crosses different classifications of animals, said Jenny Graves, an Australian National University genomics expert who co-wrote the paper.
"What we found was the genome, just like the animal, is an amazing amalgam of reptilian and mammal characteristics with quite a few unique platypus characteristics as well," she told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
Scientists believe all mammals evolved from reptiles, and the animals that became platypuses and those that became humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, including the pain-causing poison that males can use to ward off mating rivals, Graves said.
More than 100 scientists from the United States, Australia, Japan and other nations took part in the research, using DNA collected from a female platypus named Glennie.
Their work adds to the growing list of animals whose genetic makeup has been unraveled.
By comparing platypus genes to those of humans and other mammals, scientists hope to fill in gaps in knowledge about mammals' evolution and better identify certain species' specific traits.
Des Cooper, an evolutionary biologist at the University of New South Wales who did not take part in the research, said it represented a big step forward in the world's knowledge of mammals.
"Platypuses are often thought of as primitive because they lay eggs," Cooper said. "This paper demonstrates there is a mixture of characters, which they share with other mammals, and of highly specialized attributes."
Graves said the research contained some surprises, such as the conclusion that genes which determine sex in a platypus are similar to those of a bird, not a mammal. Researchers also found genes that indicate platypuses — which rely on electrosensory receptors in their bills to navigate as they rummage with closed eyes in waterways — may also be able to smell underwater.
Unique to Australia, the platypus has confounded observers for centuries. Aboriginal legend explained it as the offspring of a duck and an amorous water rat. When the British Museum received its first specimen in 1798, zoologist George Shaw was so dubious he tried to cut the pelt with scissors to make sure the bill had not been stitched on by a taxidermist.
Platypuses live in the wild along most of Australia's east coast. Their numbers are not accurately known because they are notoriously shy. Hunted for years for their pelts, they have been protected since the early 1900s and are not considered to be endangered, though scientists say their habitat is vulnerable to human development.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, May 8, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 47 of 47 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #176916 by Bruno on May 8, 2008 at 10:37 am
Such a fascinating animal, indeed.And science continues to put the puzzle of nature together, piece by piece.
Other Comments by Bruno
3. Comment #176932 by Prankster on May 8, 2008 at 11:04 am
Just proves mother nature got seriously off her nut on something when she created this creature....."pppffft-bird, mammal and reptile? That'll fuck them scientists up-pppffftt-who's coming down the all-night garage I've got the munchies?-giggles"
Other Comments by Prankster
4. Comment #176942 by Border Collie on May 8, 2008 at 11:20 am
I don't mind having a CA with a platty ...Other Comments by Border Collie
5. Comment #176948 by Quine on May 8, 2008 at 11:27 am
So, here you go. Any deity could convert the scientists of the world by having left a copy of scripture encoded in the junk DNA of the platty. Clearly, the animal is so strange that it screams "LOOK HERE FOR CREATION EVIDENCE!!!" however, look we do, and it is going to turn out to be just the reverse. Other Comments by Quine
6. Comment #176955 by ShavenYak on May 8, 2008 at 11:37 am
Wait a second. Synapsids (mammals and "mammal-like reptiles") are supposed to have diverged from diapsids (reptiles and dinosaurs, including birds) during the Carboniferous, 300 mya. How could bird genes end up in a platypus whose lineage diverged from the other mammals only 165 mya?Something tells me USA Today has, as usual, dumbed down the reporting too much.
Other Comments by ShavenYak
7. Comment #176963 by ttheobald on May 8, 2008 at 11:55 am
This reminds me a ton of "The Six Cutest Animals That Can Still Destroy You" - Platypus got second mention ). http://www.cracked.com/article_15853_6-cutest-animals-that-can-still-destroy-you.html
Enjoy!
T
Other Comments by ttheobald
8. Comment #176964 by Hypoluxa on May 8, 2008 at 11:56 am
Very interesting story indeed. Such an odd animal. Proof of Evolution is ripe in this creature. Other Comments by Hypoluxa
9. Comment #176969 by movingshadow on May 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm
"How could bird genes end up in a platypus whose lineage diverged from the other mammals only 165 mya? "Maybe I just have a headache, but this is a poorly written article. It's got bird-like features, and similar genes. Convergent evolution. They share an ancestor, and retained some reptilian features including some which we now think of as avian.
Other Comments by movingshadow
10. Comment #176978 by mordacious1 on May 8, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Where is Steve Zara when you need him? He hasn't been posting lately. Working on his book?Other Comments by mordacious1
11. Comment #176982 by VanYoungman on May 8, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Is it possible this animal could run for president of the United States? Other Comments by VanYoungman
12. Comment #176990 by konquererz on May 8, 2008 at 12:33 pm
See, god does exist, he just fucked up REALLY bad!!! LMGDFAO!
Other Comments by konquererz
13. Comment #176995 by Steve Zara on May 8, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Comment #176978 by mordacious1 I'm pleasantly busy and productive. I have been attempting to make my blog something more substantial than it has been (i.e. posting more frequently than once or twice a month). Also, I am preparing some resources to assist with rebuttals of creationist and ID arguments (something more focussed on what we may need here than Talk Origins). I am also close to finishing a long and substantial theological and philosophical debate that I will post somewhere when it is over. I am also researching an article on the theology, philosophy and science of the fine tuning of the universe.
I also have a day job!
I have been following the discussions on this site, and have been pleased with what I have seen. The grinding down of "seeker" was particularly impressive.
I'd like to take this opportunity to promote some new blogs that have appeared recently. Dr Benway's is well worth a look - contains some real gems.
http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com/
Also, Billy Sands has started a blog - an excellent first post, as would be expected:
http://basketofpuppies-billy.blogspot.com/
I will probably resume posting with my usual frequency in a month or two, when I have completed the above projects.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
14. Comment #177002 by oriole on May 8, 2008 at 12:54 pm
This story reminds me of those idiots, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, who are constantly challenging biologists to find a "crocoduck" in order to prove evolution. Check out the platypus, Ray and Kirk; there's your crocoduck!Other Comments by oriole
15. Comment #177004 by Rawhard Dickins on May 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Sounds like convergence to me. Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins
16. Comment #177008 by mordacious1 on May 8, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Steve Thought someone put a fatwa out on you. Glad you're still around and hope you're enjoying all that, sounds like a lot of work.Other Comments by mordacious1
17. Comment #177009 by Don_Quix on May 8, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Yet another example of Satan's diabolical trickery! As if all those dinosaur fossils he planted weren't enough! Other Comments by Don_Quix
18. Comment #177012 by movingshadow on May 8, 2008 at 1:09 pm
AP articles on evolution always just get me mad, all that awesome research on the 'pus, then these schmucks misrepresent it as some sort of frankensteinian chimera. Bleh! Other Comments by movingshadow
19. Comment #177015 by mordacious1 on May 8, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I forgot about crocoduck....those morons.Other Comments by mordacious1
20. Comment #177035 by quantum tuba on May 8, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ironically, the platypus is a creature which creationists in my class claim "could not have arisen from evolution" on the grounds that it is "too weird." This from the same side that demands to see a crocoduck! I think when creationists say a creature "could not have arisen from evolution" they probably just misspoke when they meant to say it "has an incredibly fascinating evolutionary history." I wish.Other Comments by quantum tuba
21. Comment #177056 by SilentMike on May 8, 2008 at 1:59 pm
What an asinine confusing headline. Creationists will have a field day with this. Similarity in the genetic mechanism that determines sex does not a proof of "part birdness" make. It doesn't mean that the platypus is a bird, just that the sex chromosomes of mammals as they are now evolved in our ancestors after they broke off from the ancestors of the platypus.Stupid popular press. Leave it to them to take some minor thing, misrepresent it, and blow it way out of proportion.
Here's the Nature headline: Monotreme's genome shares features with mammals, birds and reptiles.
Now isn't that a lot better?
Other Comments by SilentMike
22. Comment #177064 by mordacious1 on May 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm
The 'pus has 5 X chromosomes and 5 Y , way too cool.Other Comments by mordacious1
23. Comment #177116 by MorituriMax on May 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The Platypus is to God what the 15. . .(oops, trip, smash), 10 Commandments were to Moses in History of The World by Mel Brooks...Oh my God... (pun intended) with the release of a single article Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort change from creationist kooks to Scientists! Is there no Justice!? !? !?
What's next? Somebody is going to open a jar of peanut butter and an evolved banana is going to demand to be taken to our Leader?
Other Comments by MorituriMax
24. Comment #177132 by bollocks on May 8, 2008 at 4:04 pm
ZaraYou just can't stay away
Other Comments by bollocks
25. Comment #177133 by Oppomystic on May 8, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Unfortunately, religious people tend to glaze over when they hear science-related news. Any Christian reading this article would see:"Scientists said... "
And then they would mutter, "That snake next to the tree is talking again. Don't listen, don't listen, don't listen. Move on to the sports page, you're safe there."
The hold is strong with them. Sometimes the pity is thick enough to bend a knife. [sigh]
Other Comments by Oppomystic
26. Comment #177135 by Brian English on May 8, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I emailed Josh the original nature article. The popular press always reports science with ignorance. sigh... Other Comments by Brian English
27. Comment #177143 by Goldy on May 8, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Steve, good to see you back :-)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/science/08platypus.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
From the NY Times.
Original is here Nature 453, 175-183 (8 May 2008)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/full/nature06936.html
Not sure if that last link will work for all...
Other Comments by Goldy
28. Comment #177148 by Goldy on May 8, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Interesting Aotearoan aside...http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Bio30Tuat01-t1-body-d8.html
Other Comments by Goldy
29. Comment #177154 by Brian English on May 8, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Typical Kiwis, always trying to outdo the Aussies. We have an platypus, so the Kiwis have to have a platypus. We have emus and cassowaries, so Kiwis have Other Comments by Brian English
30. Comment #177157 by Goldy on May 8, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Yeah, but we don't things that kill in 10 seconds flying, crawling, walking, etc around us :-) And kiwis are cute. I mean, would you want to cuddle an emu?Wonder how long it would take to selectively breed emus to make a modern day moa...hmmm...
Other Comments by Goldy
31. Comment #177159 by Brian English on May 8, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Yeah, but we don't things that kill in 10 seconds flying, crawling, walking, etc around us
I've seen Once Were Warriors. Bloody nasty wildlife in NZ.
Some Kiwis are cute. I don't think you fit that category. Oh, you meant the small, flightless birds :)
Other Comments by Brian English
32. Comment #177166 by Goldy on May 8, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I am cute and cuddly - just in the right environment (fully clothed or with the lights out). As I keep telling people, one must never leave the environment out of the equation :-)Other Comments by Goldy
33. Comment #177167 by The Reverend Dark on May 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Goldy ponders
Wonder how long it would take to selectively breed emus to make a modern day moa
Probably not very long at all, but it is more likely that Emu's will go the chicken route - plumper and less aggressive (oh please.... less aggresive.)
Cheers,
Shayne
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
34. Comment #177171 by Goldy on May 8, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Probably not very long at all, but it is more likely that Emu's will go the chicken route - plumper and less aggressive (oh please.... less aggresive.)
Hmmm, plump chicken...and it's lunch time here...
See Brian - aggressive. Note that word describing the Aussie ratite. Moas were nice and friendly - that's why they got wiped out ;-)
Yes, I dare say emus might get smaller - but that's by natural selection. I'm selectively breeding in my mind - playing god...I mean, the Intelligent Designer (eh? Whassat? They're the same dude? No shit? Really??) - to make them bigger.
Other Comments by Goldy
35. Comment #177173 by Brian English on May 8, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Emus are quite docile, unless provoked*. It's the Cassowaries that I'd worry about. They are nasty.*I remember a school excursion in which a bunch of teenagers (including moi) chased a poor emu back and forth through the picnic grounds. The emu was quite tame, and if you left down the window of you car, would stick it's head inside and scare the crap out of you. Wild emus don't like humans much, so they're not a problem.
Other Comments by Brian English
36. Comment #177191 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:09 pm
i read this article this morning and even the title told me the science was going to be a bit off, 'part bird' of course the platypus is no more bird than you or i its just that it retains its egg laying ability as do birds. Other Comments by phasmagigas
37. Comment #177192 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Ironically, the platypus is a creature which creationists in my class claim "could not have arisen from evolution" on the grounds that it is "too weird." This from the same side that demands to see a crocoduck! I think when creationists say a creature "could not have arisen from evolution" they probably just misspoke when they meant to say it "has an incredibly fascinating evolutionary history." I wish.
yet again the creationists show themselves as masters of the argument from personal incredulity and general ignorance. 'Too weird' well just how does someboy define 'too weird' from 'just a bit weird' only through our human coloured spectacles are we not also too weird, crestionists singularly lack imagination out of all humans.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
38. Comment #177193 by Goldy on May 8, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I can see the headlines now..."Part man, part fish, gene map of modern humans"http://richarddawkins.net/article,2137,Interview-with-Neil-Shubin-author-of-Your-Inner-Fish,The-Colbert-Report
Other Comments by Goldy
39. Comment #177196 by phasmagigas on May 8, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Unique to Australia, the platypus has confounded observers for centuries. Aboriginal legend explained it as the offspring of a duck and an amorous water rat.
sweet jeebus, i hope that the 'academic freedom' crowd are reading this, kids should get full marks for reciting the origins of the platypus, they should like that its almost the crocoduc idea.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
40. Comment #177198 by bluebird on May 8, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I didn't know they had venonmous spurs...what a fascinating critter!!
"Crocoduc" reminds me of a Southern culinary favorite :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken
Other Comments by bluebird
41. Comment #177239 by Andrew Stich on May 8, 2008 at 8:02 pm
"Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile"That must be the worst title I have ever seen on this site.
1) Birds are taxonomically reptiles!
2) Platypuses are monotremes, which is a reptile-like form of mammals!
3) It's impossible for any species to be of 3 contradictory clades! That would mean 3 species (well, as previously stated, birds are reptiles, so birds is just a sub-clade of reptile, so 2 species).
Platypuses are popularly thought to be part reptile, part mammal and part bird because they are "primitive" mammals. When I say primitive, I mean no bad connotation. I just mean that they are similar to the ancestor, in this case similar to reptile-like forms. Non-egglaying birth is obviously a phenomenon found exclusively in Theria (Marsupials and Placentals), after having diverged with Monotremata (Echidnas and platypuses). And as for the bird-like characteristics, well, those can easily be accounted for by convergent evolution. Beavers have webbed feet; so do otters and muskrats. They are all swimmers, like Anseriformes (the particular bird order that includes all waterfowl). And "genes which determine sex in a platypus are similar to those of a bird, not a mammal"... The similarities with birds can be explained by coincidence, and it means "not OTHER mammals". Also, I wonder if the similarities with birds are shared with other reptiles as well; if so, then I wouldn't have to invoke coincidence. I could just say that the Theria sex genes evolved after diverging with Monotremata, and the Monotremes simply haven't had a change in those characteristics.
ShavenYak:
"Wait a second. Synapsids (mammals and "mammal-like reptiles") are supposed to have diverged from diapsids (reptiles and dinosaurs, including birds) during the Carboniferous, 300 mya. How could bird genes end up in a platypus whose lineage diverged from the other mammals only 165 mya?"
That's close to being right, but not quite. Synapsids didn't diverge from diapsids; they diverged from all reptiles, which includes turtles, tortoises and terrapins (collectively called Chelonia). Chelonia subsequently diverged from Diapsida. Also, it is thought (by some at least) that reptiles diverged from synapsids about 310 mya, and in fact Chelonia diverged from Diapsida 300 mya.
Hope this clears some things up.
Other Comments by Andrew Stich
42. Comment #177240 by dragonfirematrix on May 8, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Very interesting.I bet the creatationists have an excuse for why their god allowed (I assume) such cross breeding.
The religious need to detail for all of us where in their bibble (or core-rant) the platypus is explained by their god.
SCIENCE ROCKS!!!
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
43. Comment #177389 by rod-the-farmer on May 9, 2008 at 2:15 am
This mixup of different genes explains now, for the first time, why Noah did not take one (or two) on the ark. His collection crew either could not make up their minds as to what it was, and so left it behind, OR, they just couldn't find one. Having hunted in vain for them myself (as a tourist), I can believe the latter. In a rainstorm they are almost impossible to see. If he had taken two, there would be platypus all over the planet. They are found only in Australia, because they swam like they usually do, during the flood, and survived. Geographically isolated ? Problem solved.Now as to the questions
(1) how many people were in the animal collection crew ? Noah had, what, 8 people ? Some of them had to be building the ark...
(2) how long did it take them ?
(3) what mode of transport was used to bring them back to the middle east ? (another boat ? - in the same tone of voice used in The Hunt for Red October - "You lost another submarine ?")
(4) who provided the list of candidates, each animal to be ticked off as it was collected ?
(5) where did the food come from to sustain the animals during their trip back to the ark ?
Sorry, what was I thinking....goddidit.
All the technology advances implied/inherent in the successful collection, transport and husbandry of so many different animals were not documented at the time. Doubtless lost scrolls will be found in future years.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
44. Comment #177499 by JanChan on May 9, 2008 at 7:39 am
Ok, this article isn't very informative, did someone dumbed down the content? I didn't even get to find out when and from what animal did the platypus branched out from, if it shared its last ancestor with a bird, reptile or mammal.Other Comments by JanChan
45. Comment #177530 by Adrael on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 am
"Scientists believe all mammals evolved from reptiles..."
Am I being too nitpicky if I say that phrases like that bother me?. :P
I mean, I feel like it's moron-speak for "this is what stuffy, elitist dorks who hate Jesus and think they're better than you came up with to do away with god."
I'm pretty sure I'm reading WAY too much into it but then again, just the way the use that word: "believe." I get the sensation that, while they probably don't mean something as obnoxious as I imagined first, they may be using it to appease the devout. "Shhh, I know it sounds scary, hunny, but that's just what they BELIEVE. They have their beliefs and you have yours. They can't prove god doesn't exist. The jury's still out".
Or maybe I'm just a paranoid little brat. It could go either way. Hey, you try living all your life in a country that's 90% Catholic, 95% Christian and 99% theist. ^_^'
Other Comments by Adrael
46. Comment #177607 by Savior Self on May 9, 2008 at 11:00 am
Convergent evolution explains similar phenotypes shared by species without similar genotypes. Similar genes indicate homology, so we can not simply write off the platypus' similarities with birds as convergent evolution.Other Comments by Savior Self
47. Comment #177624 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 11:33 am
Rod-the-farmer: I had a discussion with a born-again about the ark and from what I could gather, angels lifted the larger animals from around the planet, and also kept the boat afloat. When I asked him about the physical space (cubits) he replied with some nonsense about god compacting space. I guess a little bit of knowledge about science can lead to some pretty warped ideas.Other Comments by mordacious1
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Most of what we strive for in our modern life uses the apparatus of goal seeking that was originally set up to seek goals in the state of nature."
Richard Dawkins
"Thus the creationist's favourite question "What is the use of half an eye?" Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye..."
Richard Dawkins
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
Richard Dawkins
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it."
Richard Dawkins
"The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front.""
Kurt Vonnegut
Other Recommended Reading
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
Your Inner Fish
Neil Shubin
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #176910 by Jimbesity on May 8, 2008 at 10:30 am
Other Comments by Jimbesity