1. Comment #132355 by BigChiefRainInFace on February 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Fascinating!

I eventually want to read all of RD's books, but I can't decide which to begin next; they are all so interesting!

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

2. Comment #132362 by Coelacanth on February 24, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Great article! Thank you for all the work you do, Richard. I am a frequent visitor to this website and always look forward to feasting in the banquet of information it provides.

Are you familiar with any of the research that studies the co-evolution of the Californian Red-Sided Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis) and the posionous species of newt upon which it feeds? The authors of the study discover some intersting connections between the snakes red markings and the poisonous newts it preys upon. After watching "The Salamander's Tale," I googled a bit and came across the following article: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568(199912)49:12<945:HTTAET>2.0.CO;2-3

Keep up the great work!

Tony (Augusta, GA)

Other Comments by Coelacanth

3. Comment #132370 by Coelacanth on February 24, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Can this ring theory also be applied to the various subspecies of Elaphe obsoleta that vary greatly in color as one moves north from the Florida Keys up to Canada? In south Florida the rat snake which goes by the name Elaphe obsoleta rossalleni is uniformly orange. At the opposite extreme up in Pennsylvania it is the "black rat snake" (Elpahe obsoleta obsoleta). In between (from Georgia up through the Carolinas) you find a broad spectrum of intermediate colorations, e.g. the yellow rat snake, gray rat snake, coastal rat snake, etc. etc. However, you will never find an Everglades rat snake and black rat snake sharing the same natural geography - unless of course one escapes from the cage of a careless herp collector.

Other Comments by Coelacanth

4. Comment #132371 by Elles on February 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Yay!

My favorite tale! Er... second favorite... alright, maybe third... And I'm only two thirds of the way through Ancestor's Tale so far...

Other Comments by Elles

5. Comment #132380 by Andrew Stich on February 24, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Yes, The Ancestor's Tale is perhaps my favorite of all non-fiction books, in part because of its lucid style, in part because of the rich detail, and in part because of the sheer diversity of information. The Salamander's Tale was one of the gemstones of the book, I think, but there are so many others that I cannot label a distinctive best tale. What other tales have you enjoyed, Elles?

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

6. Comment #132391 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Ahh Romana(um, I mean Lalla) your voice is still so gentle on my ears. What a fortunate man you are Professor Dawkins -- and you write best selling books too!

(P.S. your voice is lovely too Professor in its own way -- no offense :)

Other Comments by Radesq

7. Comment #132431 by robotaholic on February 24, 2008 at 6:37 pm

omgoodness- this video was so amazing to me- #1. Lalla Ward is the best narrator I have ever heard- ever - #2. I never heard of a ring species before- and the conclusion of the video is so interesting.

wow Professor Richard Dawkins has produced so much material that I have not experienced- he is such a scholar- I CONTINUALLY am appreciative!- Thank you so much

EDIT: I also want to say something else: To me the joy of learning is unmatched. I pitty the religious individual who turns off at the word evolution. This planet is amazing, evolution is wonderous, and making the information so easy to grasp for the layman (that would definitely be me)fills me with joy that I absolutely never had when I was being religiously indoctrinated in the past. WOW

Other Comments by robotaholic

8. Comment #132444 by sarah95 on February 24, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Radesq,
Perhaps I can balance things out by saying: Professor, your voice is quite gentle and pleasant on my ears as well("lovely...in its own way"). Lalla, what an extremely fortunate woman you are, and how well you compliment your husbands' writing in illustration and voice!
Well done both of you!

Other Comments by sarah95

9. Comment #132446 by Gunnar on February 24, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I love the problematization of species concepts

Other Comments by Gunnar

10. Comment #132448 by chuckgoecke on February 24, 2008 at 7:01 pm

This just emphasizes what I have said in another post of what an artificial, convenience term, the "species" is. Its an attempt to pigeon-hole what is in reality an amorphus genetic cloud. (being pulled around by the genes themselves, right, Richard?)

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

11. Comment #132498 by Stratos on February 24, 2008 at 9:21 pm

I love all of Prof. Dawkins' work. I have read most of his books, seen all of his videos, and idolize him. One small point though.

I hope no one gets the impression that the final image in the video, consisting of "Oliver" the chimpanzee, is human-chimpanzee hybrid created through human-chimpanzee interbreeding. Indeed he is not.

Supposedly geneticists thoroughly tested Oliver and they concluded that he is a normal chimpanzee. His strange behavior (for a chimpanzee anyway) which included bipedalism was probably as a result of training. Though that does not detract the fact that our ape cousin is a fascinating being. Search him on youtube.com.

Other Comments by Stratos

12. Comment #132510 by Richard Morgan on February 24, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Now that I hear it spoken aloud, I realise that I have the title for my next composition:

They gradually turn into each other.

Oh, frabjous day!

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

13. Comment #132533 by Mitchell Gilks on February 24, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Utterly fantastic. The conclusion of the video I realised shortly after learning about evolution, and finding out that it is indeed true. The logical conclusion that we are simply another animal, like everything else, and that there is nothing to justify killing and eating, or medical testing on one animal, while we don't on others.

This quickly prompted me to become a vegetarian, and advocate for (non-human) animal rights.

Although sadly, I will disagree. I think that it is quite likely that even if such a scenario were true, and we were a "ring species," I still think numerous people would find a way to justify to themselves the belief that humans are better. Don't forget, racists, sexists, the religion, nationalists, and other such people find no trouble convincing themselves that they are better than other humans, that have almost no difference. When one doesn't realise that "better" is a value judgement, and nothing is catagorically better than anything else, such flawed reasoning follows suit. I doubt they would have any trouble justifying to themselves that humans are still better than any other animal. With some form of convoluted sophistry.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

14. Comment #132535 by Richard Morgan on February 24, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Talking about memes, are theists and atheists at the opposite ends of a ring-shaped continuum?
(OK -I'm not too happy about talking about rings with ends, but you started!)
Can rationalists and theists interbreed?
Would they want to?
Maybe the absolute impossibility of dialogue between the two (sub?) species is the equivalent of the impossibility of inter-species breeding?
If so, who's trying to screw whom?
And why?

Reminds me of the old joke:
Question: What do you get if you cross an atheist with a fundamentalist?
Answer : An Anglican and a bunch of angry in-laws.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

15. Comment #132539 by Verylee on February 25, 2008 at 12:12 am

Well done RodHullIAmHim....Thanks RD Net, that's a great idea, there are so many talented people on this site it would be a fascinating project.

Other Comments by Verylee

16. Comment #132543 by AfraidToDie on February 25, 2008 at 12:46 am

14. Comment #132535 by Richard Morgan Can rationalists and theists interbreed? Would they want to?

I'm sure that was rhetorical as we've proven our species (males) will breed with anything that moves, and sometimes when it doesn't.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

17. Comment #132589 by sven_der_sar on February 25, 2008 at 2:24 am

Richard, this was the most easily digested (and remembered) new chunk of information that I gathered from The Ancestor's Tale.
Cheers and well done... I found it a particularly enjoyable passage.

Other Comments by sven_der_sar

18. Comment #132617 by lazarus on February 25, 2008 at 3:44 am

Excellent. I have read the Ancestors Tale and this is one of the tales that really stuck in my memory - good to see it presented like this.

It's great that they are available on Youtube for all to share.

Other Comments by lazarus

19. Comment #132639 by ADePSP on February 25, 2008 at 4:17 am

WOW, I made this... Wasn't sure it was worthy of this site as the pics I added are a bit ropey... Nice one...

@Stratos, You are right about Oliver but hey if people haven't heard of him it still kind-a gives the right impression...

Other Comments by ADePSP

20. Comment #132673 by nalfeshnee on February 25, 2008 at 5:37 am

"I love the problematization of species concepts."

Thank you, Gunnar, that's precisely what I wanted to say.

I've just finished reading Origin... again and I was once more struck by the (intended?) irony in Darwin's title.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

21. Comment #132678 by VanYoungman on February 25, 2008 at 5:51 am

Wow! As much as I love Dr. Who, the real thing beats it every time.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

22. Comment #132682 by 4horsefins on February 25, 2008 at 6:01 am

there is nothing to justify killing and eating, or medical testing on one animal, while we don't on others.

Is Richard a vegetarian?

What keeps all living things from being cannibalistic? I am new here, how do you highlight a comment by someone else in your own comment box?

Other Comments by 4horsefins

23. Comment #132690 by ADePSP on February 25, 2008 at 6:07 am

@4horsefins: I do it like this :D

Other Comments by ADePSP

24. Comment #132691 by RainDear on February 25, 2008 at 6:08 am

This is one of my favourite sections in the Ancestor's Tale. Also the moral implications RD points out are interesting, and I've cited them every now and then in casual conversations.

Excellent point from Mitchell Gilks, though. As a human being, I selfishly find it a relief that there now is such a clear distinction between us and other ape species. Now we can at least draw some line between acceptable and unacceptable killing. Otherwise, given our racist and tribalist tendencies, killing anything foreign could be a commonplace and there would be no end to genocidal wars.

Then again, this sad thing may have already happened between the earlier hominids. Perhaps the Neanderthals were the nice guys. And we named our own, aggressive species the Homo Sapiens Sapiens quite undeservedly.

Other Comments by RainDear

25. Comment #132695 by 4horsefins on February 25, 2008 at 6:14 am

I get this sick feeling in my stomach when I here vegetarians comment on this. Is it immoral for a male chimp to eat one of his young? How bout a cheetah eating a gazelle?

Other Comments by 4horsefins

26. Comment #132701 by 4horsefins on February 25, 2008 at 6:25 am

To all vegetarians... you kill billions of living things, with families that don't want to die, every time you drive to work. Death and sacrifice is a part of life. The problem is the same as theism, your suggesting anyone who is not vegetarian is some how less moral than you because they sacrifice life to sustain their own.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

27. Comment #132730 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 25, 2008 at 7:03 am

the matter of gene flow is quite interesting, something i think many people would benefit from. most people arent used to thinking in a gene centred world, they think of animals as being distinctly sepperate, they dont think of the genes as being notably important.
the idea of a ring of genes flowing from one animal into another across space would certainly be eye opening.

hell im still adjusting myself to a genocentric world view. where the animal itself is more of a side effect of the flowing of genes, the chemistry that makes up the body, even breaking down to the gene level you can go further to the chemical level or the atomic level.

the world is most certainly a fascinating thing..

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

28. Comment #132745 by bluebird on February 25, 2008 at 7:15 am

Interesting.

Per Salamanders, this snippet caught my eye:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/salamander-tongue-strikes-like-a-crossbow

Other Comments by bluebird

29. Comment #132787 by Geoff on February 25, 2008 at 7:57 am

wooter:

Go away and play somewhere else.

( I was originally going to post something more Diacanu-esque)

Other Comments by Geoff

30. Comment #132788 by hungarianelephant on February 25, 2008 at 7:58 am

"Also, God cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity."

Can you spot any logical error here?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

31. Comment #132795 by steveroot on February 25, 2008 at 8:02 am

29. Comment #132783 by wooter on February 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

3. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
From Christian answers web page.

He's been around "always", but apparently got bored with bashing the bishop so created everything a few thousand years ago. Makes sense. Sign me up.
{/sarcasm}
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

32. Comment #132817 by Epinephrine on February 25, 2008 at 8:27 am

I was intrigued reading about this in The Ancestor's Tale, as it brought to mind the Wallace effect; does anyone know if there is support for the Wallace effect in these ring species?

I suppose that in both cases the Wallace effect might be observed, but I guess the question I have is whether it could be the generator of such a ring species effect - whether the differences could in fact start where the overlap occurs. A temporary isolation (for example, the south end of the valley in the salamander's tale) that presented a barrier, then was removed, and which again perhaps presents a barrier could in fact have begun the separation of the species at the south end. When the two populations that had begun to differ only slightly from each other met again, they had a reduced fertility due to their separation, which causes the Wallace effect to kick in - mating with the other population is punished in essence, so traits which emphasise the differences grow stronger, resulting in the highest degree of contrast at the overlap. These genes can then flow northward along the valley, giving the appearance of having had its start either at the top or on one side, when in fact it could have started from a separation of species at the south end, kicked into overdrive by the penalising Wallace effect on hybrids.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

33. Comment #132839 by Old_Pollution on February 25, 2008 at 9:17 am

Would humans treat chimpanzees with more respect if they felt a kinship with them?

Personally I doubt it - basing my case on huge swathes of history of the human race. We don't seem to have a problem being horrible to each other - so would it really make that much difference if we thought of chimps as people?

Interesting video just the same though.

Other Comments by Old_Pollution

34. Comment #132851 by Richard Morgan on February 25, 2008 at 9:46 am

AfraidToDie

I'm sure that was rhetorical as we've proven our species (males) will breed with anything that moves

"Breed"?
I take it you're using the word "breed" as a euphemism for having sex.
Well, I hope you are.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

35. Comment #132853 by Rational Thinking on February 25, 2008 at 9:54 am

Oh ditto that :-)

Other Comments by Rational Thinking

36. Comment #132856 by Richard Morgan on February 25, 2008 at 10:00 am

More music'n'stuff:

"Broken Rings and Gulls and Things."
From : The Salamander's Tale."
by Richard DAWKINS
Voice: Lalla WARD;
Music : Richard MORGAN




http://www.mediafire.com/?gg5fsxwbmxy

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

37. Comment #132858 by clunkclickeverytrip on February 25, 2008 at 10:03 am

Wooter is as daft as a brush. I loved the "In summary" bit at the end of post 29 - in parody of a learned paper.
When Wooter was selecting a religion, why did they choose Christianity over the other choices? Don't tell me it's the only religion they ever been involved in! Parental indoctrination I'll wager.
Away you go Wooter and try Islam for a change. Then Judeism, Hinduism, etc. Come back with a critical comparison for us - we'll still be here.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

38. Comment #132898 by Mitchell Gilks on February 25, 2008 at 11:41 am

4Horsefins. It is very true that most actions result in the death or suffering of many things, in order for me to exist, it costs the existence of other things. I do not claim it possible to prevent or stop all killing or suffering in the world, that is absurd. I am only saying that one should attempt to prevent as much as possible. The obvious absurdity of stating that because we can't prevent all suffering in the world, that we shouldn't try to prevent any blows my mind. I hear that a lot. Yet it is so very wide open to reductio ad absurdum to show how flawed of reasoning that really is.

You cannot prevent the suffering and starving off all children through out the world, so should we not attempt to prevent as much as possible? Can't prevent all sickness and diease, or get medical attenting to everyone. Not try to get medical attention to as many as possible? No matter what we do rape and murder will continue in the world, so therefore should we not attempt to prevent as much rape and murder as possible?

As for the moral thing, of course I think I am more moral than someone who is consciously and willfully responsible for more suffering and death than I am. Just as I consider myself more moral than someone who beats children, rapes or murders. You could say this is just like religious people, but that would be patantly absurd. Unless you don't consider yourself morally superior to a rapist or a murderer, and do think that religion has a monopoly on morality. I however do not.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

39. Comment #132904 by emmet on February 25, 2008 at 11:45 am

Can you spot any logical error here?

Me! Me! Me! I can! I can!

Do I win a lollipop?

Do I get another one for not feeding the troll?

Other Comments by emmet

40. Comment #133067 by edwaltthespisactor on February 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I just finished the ancestors tale. Absolutely immense! As a teacher of Performing Arts I find RD's work not only accessible but have a real gripping style for the non-specialist scientist. I find myself chatting away to my students who have taken advanced Biology when we're supposed to be analysing Stanislavski and Chekhov!

I have now absorbed many new 'cranes' into my artistic vocabulary as well from RD's example of 'clarity first' intellectualism.

Ideas such as Discontinuous thinking versus continuous thinking are great cranes for critical thinking skills. Also the cunning way RD works from the macro to the micro in his analysis - always using beautiful examples - only to then take the reader back up to the macro once more with a new understanding and perspective.

This weighty tome is not a threatening book, it is an exciting and episodic collection of short tales by funny and exotic pilgrims. Of all I remember fondly the Fungi's tale - which really is an eye opener - closer to animals than plants I ask you! - and the hagfish and lamprey with the jawless eating action! nice. Also the reverse-evolved fish swim bladder - coming after the lung! And I even sat chatting amazedly with my new friend the Biology teacher recently about the evolutionary scandal of the male sex! She seemed very excited about my second hand account of Dawkins' description of the Bdelloid Rotifer - and the absence of males...

I'll let you know If I make any progress as a male in that direction as it were... Maybe she was a little too impressed by the Bdelloid Rotifer's ultimate imancipation from men - perhaps I'd best steer clear...

In short - an AMAZING BOOK, cool pictures, cunning diagrams, dry and often laugh-out-loud wit, and the stunning power of billions of years of creativity lurking behind every page!

Keep it up RD!

Ed
Aberdeen

Other Comments by edwaltthespisactor

41. Comment #133228 by shaunfletcher on February 25, 2008 at 11:16 pm

I believe ring species to be perhaps our most powerful/easy to use device in persuading the waverers, and wavering the rigid.

They are easy to explain, and the dichotomy they cause for anyone trying to deny evolution as the cause of speciation is obvious enough to be visible to any intelligent person who listens to a description.

Additionally the examples are interesting even to someone not interested much in biology, and people will generally listen to an interesting tale, even if they expect to disagree with it.

And finally there is almost no counter argument available, without appearing foolish even to oneself.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

42. Comment #133246 by philmillhaven on February 26, 2008 at 1:18 am

The logical conclusion that we are simply another animal, like everything else, and that there is nothing to justify killing and eating, or medical testing on one animal, while we don't on others... I consider myself more moral than someone who beats children, rapes or murders.

Which is worse, a murdering rapist or a dairy farmer?

The harsh reality is that to produce milk, a cow must have a calf. To maximise production, each calf is taken from its mother within 24-48 hours of birth. Calves would naturally suckle for 6-12 months.

Separation is a distressing process as mother and calf form a strong maternal bond. Dairy cow husbandry expert, Professor John Webster described the removal of the calf as the "most potentially distressing incident in the life of the dairy cow". Webster points out that "the cow will submit herself to considerable personal discomfort or risk to nourish and protect her calf". [6] Examples of this are cows that have escaped and travelled several miles to find their own calf after it has been sold on to another farm.
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/animals/exploitation/cows/dairy_cow.php

Male calves are variously castrated, slaughtered for veal or simply killed and thrown away. By your reasoning a murdering rapist of humans is no worse than a dairy farmer. Is that really what you think?

Other Comments by philmillhaven

43. Comment #133252 by Tyler Durden on February 26, 2008 at 1:32 am

Comment #133247 by wooter:

We never say if there is a painting then there is chances and luck that made that painting by chance.

wooter, how many times do you need to be told this. Your "argument from design" is not the same as evolution. A painting (or a car, or a mousetrap) is not organic, whereas life is. How can you be so blind/stupid not to see the same point being made to you by so many different people, and yet continue to make the same elementary mistake?

If there is an art , there is an artist.

And if there is breathtaking inanity, there is wooter!

Go read a book on evolution first, then try posting here.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

44. Comment #133273 by irate_atheist on February 26, 2008 at 2:21 am

30. Comment #132787 by Geoff -

wooter:

Go away and play somewhere else.

( I was originally going to post something more Diacanu-esque)

Please, Geoff, allow me to be more Diacuna than Diacanu:

Wooter you are a self-made ignoramous whose ignorance knows no bounds. You are the puncture in the tyre, the fly in the ointment, the turd in the punch bowl. Shove your stupidity up your arse and crawl off while you're doing it.

I don't wish to be rude, but we've read all your cretinist bullshit before, spewed across this site, and you can fuck off.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

45. Comment #133317 by Richard Morgan on February 26, 2008 at 4:03 am

Since I have been inundated by requests for my Dawkins-inspired musical creations (the number was doubled this morning when I received two more!!!) I have decided to make them all available via one link:


Morgan's Music




Enjoy.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

46. Comment #133358 by 4horsefins on February 26, 2008 at 6:00 am

of course I think I am more moral than someone who is consciously and willfully responsible for more suffering and death than I am.

Gilks, maybe I can be more clear. I am not saying it is a measurable number, but what if you were to learn that a meat eater who had lived the same number of years as you had, MURDERED less living things than you had because of their lifestyle...sitting on the couch 24/7. That would make you consciously and willfully responsible for more suffering and death than they are.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

47. Comment #133365 by irate_atheist on February 26, 2008 at 6:08 am

14. Comment #132535 by Richard Morgan -

I married a Vicar's daughter. This is not a joke - although it may be amusing to some.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

48. Comment #133369 by 4horsefins on February 26, 2008 at 6:18 am

Lets say staying at home on the couch caused you to kill less living things than while driving. I believe this is true, you must not. Or you must decide not to drive so you can kill less living things. You could only leave the house when doing things which are mandatory to survival, or as Richard would say, making your living.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

49. Comment #133374 by Richard Morgan on February 26, 2008 at 6:28 am

irate_atheist

I married a Vicar's daughter.

OK. Wedding ring species.
I hope you are able to breed satisfactorily.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

50. Comment #133385 by Philip1978 on February 26, 2008 at 6:38 am

Irate
The fact that you rescued your wife, gave her hope, a better life and created Irate Junior with her invites respect rather than amusement - I would also advocate the issuing of medals and cups of tea for your amazing efforts but that's my humble opinion! :)

Wooter,
Your Parable of the Liar was lost on me, I didn't understand a word of it - could you possibly explain that one a bit better?

Nobody here is lying to you, they are more frustrated with your lack of desire to discover new and better horizons that are blocked by the blinkers of your religion.

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978