Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Steve Zara


401. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230844 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 10:14 am

Comment #230843 by Gregg Townsend

I do wonder often how much actual thought goes into our conversations.

I may say "Good afternoon, my friend, how are you?". Translated into Homo erectus or Chimp, that may be "grunt" but actually contain no less useful information.

402. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230840 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 9:49 am

I can see what you're saying, but, we interfere in natural processes. We don't selectively breed - as such - but we do negate the effects of genes that would naturally be not selected for. Asthma drugs being just one example.


Of course. However, there have been recent reports of great apes apparently deliberately self-medicating. This means not just some instinctive behaviour, such as dogs eating grass when their stomachs are upset, but seeking out certain plants to deal with certain illnesses. Are they interfering with nature?

I am not sure one should call it natural selection. But I'm not sure what one should call it. It is a fascinating discussion.


I agree!

If I wanted to be provocative, I might suggest that we have a cultural hangover from the religious tradition that we have dominion over the animals; that we are somehow the chosen, special species.

We may be a particularly interesting species in that we have self-awareness, but I do wonder how much self-awareness we really do have. Most of us operate most of the time on gut feelings (I know I do). We know that most of our mental activity is unconscious.

Edit:

Especially as I need to go home and cook dinner for the family.


I am the household cook too. But my husband has been pacified with "starters" for a while. I'll have to do some serious cooking in a minute.

403. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230835 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 9:07 am

Don't you think there's a distinction here?


Not really no. What we are capable of is determined by genes (that give us our big brains), and, in the end, those genes will either be selected or not.

404. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230790 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 6:23 am

Comment #230786 by Bonzai

What particularly fascinates me is the way that creationists miss the point when they ask "how does mutation produce a new organ, like a limb". There are some organisms that have pretty mutable body plans, and there were many of these around 600million or so years ago. But once a certain path has been taken, body structures can be too inter-dependent for anything fundamentally new to appear.

405. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230784 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 6:08 am

Comment #230761 by Rawhard Dickins

There is also the question of ... what are starfish supposed to evolve into. Once a certain body structure has been established, there is only so much that can happen. Because certain fish appeared, certain lineages of animals have had 4 limbs. We mammals aren't going to suddenly develop an extra pair of useful limbs (they can appear as mutations, but generally get in the way).

406. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230749 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 5:08 am

So what do people think of my opinion when I think that intelligence impedes physical evolution?


I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree, as we don't mate randomly. While people find certain people attractive and not others, there is still selection of certain characteristics going on, and therefore of certain genes.

407. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230745 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 4:57 am

Comment #230741 by princezephyr

Please let us know your scientific qualifications, and publication record. I am willing to give you a chance to prove yourself, but as countless biologists over decades have not only accepted evolution, but found that it is a vital part of their science, I am going to need quite a bit of proof your scientific credentials if I am going to rate you above them.

408. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230710 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #230697 by irate_atheist

I am beginning to dislike the term "Natural Selection", as it seems to put us in a different category. If medicine helps us to survive long term, then we will have been "selected" as much as any other species.

409. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230707 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 4:06 am

Comment #230699 by princezephyr

I think you will see that Professor Dawkins has already faced his opponents, with decades of high-profile publications, with world-class books and with campaigns for education. These efforts have been recognised with major awards.

If you really think that spouting creationist nonsense at him in public is going to change anything, you are seriously mistaken.

Write books, publish papers. Come up with testable hypotheses. That is the way to change minds.

410. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230676 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 3:38 am

Comment #230672 by irate_atheist

Yes - an animal may be more able to alter its environment or make better use of it (with tools) than have to change.

411. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230669 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 3:19 am

Comment #230666 by beeline

I'm just musing. I like to throw a spanner in the gears of a discussion occasionally....

412. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230661 by Steve Zara on August 15, 2008 at 3:07 am

I'm a little sceptical of this. I think one could just as easily argue that long leg size or large wing size could increase the rate of evolution, as they allow animals get to explore new niches.

413. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230382 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Comment #230369 by Sciros

I do agree about cycle paths. However, I cycle more for fun and fitness than travel, and I am lucky to have lots of country roads near where I live, where cycles, tractors, cars and horses all seem to co-exist happily.

414. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230360 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Comment #230356 by Quetzalcoatl

You are a God. You can (quite literally) rise above the insults of mere mortals.

415. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230352 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Comment #230337 by Quetzalcoatl

Actually, I was only partially joking. I admit to being an inconsistent and imperfect person (not that this needs pointing out to anyone). I can catch myself thinking "pesky cyclist, why don't they pull over so I can overtake" when I drive, yet I love cycling. I worry about global warming, but I drive quite a lot as public transport can be truly awful in the UK.

416. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230344 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Comment #230331 by Teratornis

There is nothing strange about the self-righteousness of gaswasting supporters of Islamic terrorism.


Gosh.

417. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230333 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Comment #230126 by Teratornis

If you were even fractionally as humble as you proudly claim to be, you wouldn't be any more bothered by my arrogance than a dog is.


I never mentioned arrogance. I was referring to your claim to be somewhat perfect. You may be humble and think you are pretty perfect. I have no idea. I am just sceptical and doubt claims of perfection. I also think it is very odd for anyone to claim that they approach perfection, but maybe that is just me.

418. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230312 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Comment #230307 by Dadeolus

Is society truly retreating from reason?


I don't see any real evidence it is. I think it is becoming more acceptable to question superstition and irrational beliefs, so we hear more about them. Also, the mainstream religions are getting concerned about people switching to other forms of supernaturalism.

419. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230305 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Comment #230295 by decius

And, of course, in a few years there will be a problem with oiling the gears.

Comment #230300 by Quetzalcoatl

As a car driver, I have a natural antipathy towards cyclists.


Strangely enough, when driving, so do I.

420. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230293 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Comment #230291 by decius

I am getting into serious cycling though. I guess that counts for something.

421. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230287 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #230274 by decius

My strategy was to wait until I was well on the way to being a bitter hag, and then find someone who was prepared to put up with me. Has worked for 15 years so far!

422. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230277 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Comment #230250 by Teratornis

Just like Steve Zara, I love to be logically corrected.


I have not the slightest problem with being logically corrected.

What pushes my buttons is being patronised. I have no objection to a good rant. I have had major arguments with some people here, but I still treat them as knowledgable and have respect for them.

423. The God Delusion

Comment #230065 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #230039 by decius

Thank you. You have said what I should have said far, far more eloquently and clearly that I did.

424. The God Delusion

Comment #230003 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 6:22 am

Running around accusing everyone whose behaviour you don't like of being a theist is woeful and paranoiac.


Ok, so you have established to your satisfaction I am a sad paranoid. Good for you.

The guy getting bullied off the board by everyone leaping in going "yeah, sock it to him Zara"?


No, you twit. I don't need anyone else to back me up. I express my views for myself only. I was trying to shock the guy into realising what an ass he was.

In the meantime, sorry to break it to you Steve, but you aren't a moderator here.


You are delightfully arrogant sometimes, aren't you?

If someone rants on an open forum, and someone else finds it offensive it is entirely appropriate to complain to that person in public. It isn't trying to be a moderator in any way.

I don't want any condescending private messages telling me how to act, thank you. I am happy to make my mistakes in public, and be told I am a silly sod in public.

If you want to take up that role, and it keeps you happy, good for you.

425. The God Delusion

Comment #229697 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 12:28 am

Comment #229677 by Dr Doctor

But more to the point, how are "they" going to judge "us" from this incident? Who are "they" and "us" in this situation?


If you have any knowledge of the history of this site, you should know full well who "they" are. It is people like David Robertson or Dinesh D'Souza who regularly trawl this site. Many people actually believe what these people say.

As for people judging all homosexuals by kkelly shows a strange leap of logic to me.


This shows naivety in my view. We have seen people like Robertson and R. Morgan make just such generalisations about "atheists" based on a few posts here.

Who cares if kkelly is a "theist plant", although to be honest that sounds as ravingly paranoiac..


This is also the first time I have been accused of paranoia (let alone "raving paranoia"). I don't think the number of sock puppets we have experienced here makes this an especially paranoid hypothesis.

You may be happy for this site to degrade to the kind of rubbish that is seen on other open forums. I'm not. To avoid that, people who post highly offensive nonsense need to be challenged.

For goodness sake, this is the site of one of the most respected and distinguished scientists.

426. The God Delusion

Comment #229449 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Comment #229439 by kkelly

I agree with Laurie.

You need to realise that there are those who will exploit your posts. They will quote-mine and say "look at what gay people post on RD.net". You are free to post what you like, but bear in mind that until you arrived gay men here were represented by the likes of Bonzai and Cartomancer. They have provided a standard of intellect and argument that is hard to equal anywhere on the internet. If you really want to bring that standard down with your obscenities, that is your choice.

427. The God Delusion

Comment #229435 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Comment #229431 by kkelly

You come on this site and post offensive stuff. I want to know why. You clearly don't have any interest in promoting clear thinking or reason. What are you up to?

428. The God Delusion

Comment #229430 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Comment #229429 by thewhitepearl

I can be slow. I find it hard to decide between kkelly just being an idiot who likes to rant, someone with a psychological problem, or someone who wants to provide evidence on this site for people like David Robertson or Dinesh D'Souza.

I am tending towards the last option.

429. The God Delusion

Comment #229428 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Does a tic disorder explain the content of language that is expressed through manual dexterity?


Yes. Tourettes is far more than a tic disorder. It can involve a compulsion to shock in any form.

Do you think this might describe you?

430. The God Delusion

Comment #229425 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Comment #229421 by Diacanu

Your attacks are targeted with precision. As Brian said, it may be inappropriate, but it is still targetted.

The way that kkelly posts is just to generally shock, not caring who reads and what the message would be.

He seems to post simply to say "look at me! I am just so very naughty" that is classic exhibitionism or Tourettes.

431. The God Delusion

Comment #229420 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Comment #229405 by kkelly

Please answer my question -

naive idiot, Tourettes, troll, or theist plant.

Which are you?

432. The God Delusion

Comment #229413 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Comment #229402 by Diacanu

I am not flipping out. It is just a well known way that trolls introduce obscenity into threads.

I now have now no doubt that either kkelly is incredibly naive, or suffers from Tourettes, or is part of a ploy by theists to make this site look perverse.

I think it is time he owned up.

433. The God Delusion

Comment #229392 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #229384 by kkelly

If you are putting in an effort to make yourself look like nothing more than a troublemaker, I can say you are succeeding. If you suffer from Tourette's Syndrome, I suggest you get help. The alternative is that you are either incredibly naive, or a plant from a theist site to make us look sick.

Which is it?

434. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229377 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Comment #229032 by Fanusi Khiyal

I have not the slightest objection to what you say about ideas.

What I passionately object to is your approach to how to deal with people who hold such ideas.

435. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229375 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Comment #229372 by scottishgeologist

I think that a vast number of believers accept that the Bible is flawed. But they believe in the "interpretation" of the Bible via work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, if they, or their priest, has a feeling that bits of the Bible can be ignored, that feeling is actually a sign from God.

I had a lot of experience of this when I was a Catholic, people would say that it was clear to them what God really wanted.

436. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229358 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Comment #229144 by Fanusi Khiyal

No. I did not say your views were more dangerous than that of any Muslim. That would be a generalisation, and I try and avoid those. For all I know, somewhere amongst the hundreds of millions of muslims, there are some very nasty people indeed.

What I said was that the way you would want to change UK society to deal with what you perceive as the Muslim threat would be far worse than the threat you describe.

You would reduce the UK to a police state where thoughts were a crime.

My discussions with you may well appear acrimonious, as you wish to destroy the society I want to protect.

437. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229350 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 11:58 am

Comment #229342 by Bonzai

For the hardcore pan selectionist, we are nothing but dispensing robots for our "selfish genes", in that case the "selfish gene imperative" makes sense. I am not, so I do find that language problematic, but that is because I find the entire assumption problematic.


I think you are setting up a false dichotomy.

I am a strong selectionist, but I don't believe that genes enforce such "imperatives".

I put it like this: genes are very powerful. They probably control much more of our lives that we realise, but there are no imperatives, only consequences. We can only look at the effect of genes on survival retrospectively. To talk about "imperatives" is to suggest genes have plans.

It may be that our self-awareness and ability to decide how many children we want helps the human race survive. If so, then the genes "for" self-awareness will have been selected for.

That is all there is to it, I think.

Let me try and use an analogy: entropy. Entropy tends to increase overall. It is a statistical effect. It makes no sense to say that "particles have an imperative to increase disorder".

438. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229339 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 11:40 am

Comment #229336 by Bonzai

Not everything we do is necessary for survival. What I am saying is that to consider using contraceptive as "fighting an imperative" is just a wrong way to look at things.

439. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229328 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 11:31 am

Comment #229322 by Bonzai

everytime we put on a condom we have override the "selfish gene" imperative to procreate and I don't see a good explanations from the pan selectionists.


My point is that it is hugely simplistic to talk about a "selfish gene imperative". That is my point about talk of "overriding".

In many species organisms will stop reproducing or even abort pregnancies under certain conditions if necessary to survive. There is nothing particularly odd about human use of contraception.

I find the language used in this area problematic, to be honest.

440. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229139 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #229133 by Bonzai

I take back my statement :)

441. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #229138 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #229135 by Quetzalcoatl

Robertson really is slimy. He "warms" to Hitchens because of his up-front rudeness, yet when he gets such rudeness here, he attacks it.

Twit.

442. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229131 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 6:06 am

Bonzai-

There is a tendency to invoke "selection" and "selfish genes" as vague,catch all explanations at the level of society and civilizations..They have almost become mythical notions like "God did it" or "the invisible hand". I don't think that is science.


I am afraid I haven't seen this tendency amongst serious scientists. It could just be my limited experience.

I also am not convinced that everything that we do can "ultimately" be traced back to "selection" and "selfish genes", as I said, I think a lot of what we do may be selection neutral, In other words, I don't think there is any evidence that selection alone is sufficient to constraint development to such an extent that it will lead to a unique outcome. I think there may be many possibilities compatible with selection.


I don't think anyone has seriously disagreed with what you have said here for decades.

After all, if selection did constrain things to a unique outcome, there would be little variation for nature to select from.

443. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229108 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 5:27 am

Comment #229105 by Brian English

I guess I don't know what "fight against our selfish genes" actually means, other than "let's not be social Darwinists".

444. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229104 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 5:21 am

Interesting discussion. My point was at a much simpler level. We can think at a higher level than other animals (as far as we know), but that facility is still determined by genes. If "behaving like we can escape our selfish genes" is successful for the survival of humans, then it will have been selected for by definition. And we can call the genes that have allowed us to have the capacity to do this just as "selfish" as any others.

445. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229064 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 4:16 am

Comment #229039 by Boulat

It was a good programme, but as I have said before, I am not entirely at ease with Dawkins' view that we can "escape" or "fight against" our selfish genes. It suggests that there is some sort of "imperative" from our genes to act a certain way. There isn't. Our freedom to act thoughtfully and knowingly altruistically towards others is because of our big brains, which has genetic origin. That freedom will be as much subject to selection as anything else.

I know what Dawkins means - we should not be social Darwinists simply because Natural Selection is, well, natural. However, I think the way it is put across could lead to the mistaken assumption that we are "beyond nature", whereas we are simply the fifth ape doing what the fifth ape does.

446. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229030 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 3:04 am

Comment #229029 by Quetzalcoatl on August 13, 2008 at 2:59 am

I got:

"White Rep it, that you can arreglartelas single. For that reason, treatment not to do ' bandera' against gillipollas 'wooter'"

447. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229025 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:55 am

Comment #229022 by Brian English

Sorry, I need some kind of "silly flippant comment - please ignore" emoticon!

448. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229024 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:54 am

Comment #229019 by Vaal

Together with Billy's post there, I say he has definitely been "pwned" (as the kids say today)

449. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229016 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #229013 by Brian English

As far as I can tell, universes aren't make of bricks and mortar, and don't require reliable electric supplies and decent plumbing. This one certainly seems to lack central heating.

450. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229014 by Steve Zara on August 13, 2008 at 2:44 am

Even Dawkins asked dear josh to delete my challenging.


We would love something challenging. Honestly. Someone with a different point of view, backed by interesting hypotheses and new evidence.

But if you are going to go on a site and write hundreds of posts which say nothing but:

"I don't believe it"

You are going to get justifiably marked as a troll.

If you want to be challenging, you need to do the following:

Explain the mechanism by which God produces order in the world, and new species.

Show how this mechanism can be tested for under reproducible conditions.

Show how the evidence of this mechanism links back to your particular idea of God.

Saying "evolution is wrong" is NOT evidence for any other mechanism. If you have any other ideas, you need to start from scratch, and provide actual explanations that can be researched.

If you refuse to do that, as I suspect you will, you will justifiably be marked as a troll, and hopefully soon.

I suspect you won't have a clue what I am talking about, but at least it may help point out to the casual reader what is going on here.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next