Richard Dawkins

>One of the best authors and most influential scientists in his field
>Can't talk about him without Christians getting butthurt
>Can't talk about him without SJWs getting butthurt
>Can't even talk about his books about evolution or genetics without people getting butthurt

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso
journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2017.00003/full#h6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography#Academic_papers
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18365164/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Who are you quoting, brainlet?

>thinks green text is only used for quoting

youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso
How can anyone not find him lovable?

evolutionist here
Dawkins and the gene centered view of evolution are a joke
after the selfish gene got BTFO by niche construction evo-devo behavioral evolution and mountains of empirical evidence and reason he pathetically tried to hold on to his autistic view by back pedaling in the extended phenotype. that was in the 90s. Then he moved on to picking easy fights with creationists and pop science. Sure he made some important contributions to the field, mostly by doing it wrong so others would do it right. His magnum opus is a well know joke in academia that only brainlet molecular bio undergrads and facebook trash like you take seriously. He is a good scientist but bought into some fucktarded explanatory reductionism.
he was influential although i still see the extended phenotype cited every once in a while.
way to oust yourself dumbo

I hear there is a shift away from thinking about the gene centered view of evolution but haven't actually read anything that counters it.

>He wrote things in the past that are now getting refuted so he is dumb
Do you expect everyone to get everything right every time? The gene centered view of evolution dominated biology for decades.

genes are just sign vessels the represent meaning, actual evolution takes place in the interpretation of that meaning. thats the biosemiotic paradigm. which is still in its infancy so it wont be my main example, here information none the less. use sci hub if you need
https:// link.springer. com/article/ 10.1007 / s12304 - 010 - 9087 -8
this is a recent protosynthesis that will serve as a good starting point pic related

journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2017.00003/full#h6

>transgenerational epigenetics
kys!

apparently Islam, the idea, can now be insulted. I don't agree that ideas are capable of being insulted and I don't think people should be de-plat formed for criticizing ideas.

IMHO Islam is fair game for criticism, and it deserves criticism, just like the rest of the Abrahamic religions.

search google
fucking spam filter
Evolutionary Biosemiotics and Multilevel Construction Networks

Towards an Evolutionary Biosemiotics: Semiotic Selection and Semiotic Co-option


no i think Dawkins is extremely smart. following his dogma is not

>The gene centered view of evolution dominated biology for decades.
i know he did to biology what desecrates did to the philosophy of the mind
its a conceptual pest

>it's a conceptual pest
But it was a very helpful way to think about evolution. Things like sexual selection, transgenetic material, non coding DNA, ect were really hard to understand since in many cases they HURT the organism. But when you think of every gene as it's own player than it makes sense.

fucking roasted, holy shit

>>One of the best authors and most influential scientists in his field
HAHAHAHAHAHA, no.

>thinking genes are the only biological sign capable of transferring meaning
lol

But he is. This is a fact.

Dawkins BTFO

>Can't talk about him without SJWs getting a feminine boner
FTFY

Dawkins: Christianity is bullshit.
SJW: Haha yeah, get 'em!
Dawkins: Islam is bullshit.
SJW: H-hold on a second.

this brainlet who didn't believe in population genetics btfod absolutely no one

>gets some mudslimes angry once
>therefore he a gud boi
If you actually knew SJWs, you would know how irrelevant that is. SJWs cry over each others on a daily basis.

>Dawkins: Christianity is bullshit.
not an argument
>SJW: Haha yeah, get 'em!
just a circle jerk

That's missing the point of Mayr's contribution completely.

mayr:
>behold, I have defined species
others:
>that's nice, could you please take it to the stamp club we are trying to make biology into a respectable science here

This.

What is up with academics taking an interesting theory and trampelling the life out of it so that no one can understand it anymore not even themselves?

Some of my professors have met him. Most agree that, while smart, it's incredibly arrogant and almost unsupportable.

Science becomes complicated as it advances.

Samefag is obvious

He is definitely one of the most influential evolutionary biologists of all time. You being a butthurt Christian or hipster doesn't change that

Except they hate him you retard

Nope, you can't ever insult Islam. Dawkins has never supported SJWs and they hate him.

wrong.

>40 year model gets updated
>This means Richard Dawkins is BTFO
You retards don't understand how science works.

Richard Dawkins isn't a scientist anymore, he's an advocate for atheism

But he still does science. One is a job and one is a hobby. Also don't act like shitting on Islam is a bad thing

see
pooop

But the gene centered view is still valid in a lot of ways

>influential evolutionary biologists

Influencing children counts for nothing, mate.

Dawkins is a major hypocrite, he uses the same rhetoric for atheism that Christian/Islam fundamentalists do for their ideology

Sociology and evolutionary genetics aren't for children. You are the only underage here faggot

>One of the best authors and most influential scientists in his field
I'm sorry, what? He was barely even a scientist. Currently he is definitely not one. He wrote some popsci books on other people's work and has since stopped doing anything except advocating atheism and being fuel for retard militant atheists and le atheism neckbeards. He likely makes a living off of getting paid to go to events and such.

seolhyunnie

>>Can't talk about him without Christians getting butthurt

Dude, everything Dawkins says on the subject is either strawmanning, namecalling, or circle jerking his own side. Many atheists find him incredibly autistic and annoying.

He's a laughing stock and an embarrassment to STEM. Just forget about him.

>>One of the best authors and most influential scientists in his field

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography#Academic_papers

>Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. 25 (2): 170–186. PMID 5684149. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1968.tb00011.x.
>Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science. 165 (3895): 751–751. Bibcode:1969Sci...165..751D. PMID 17742255. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751.
>Brockmann, H.J.; Dawkins, R.; Grafen A. (1979). "Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life". Behaviour. London: Academic Press. 71 (3): 203–244. doi:10.1163/156853979X00179.
>Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J.; Grafen, A. (1979). "Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 77 (4): 473–496. PMID 491692. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3.
>Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J. (1980). "Do digger wasps commit the concorde fallacy?". Animal Behaviour. 28 (3): 892–896. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80149-7.
>Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). "Religion and Science". BioEssays. 19 (8): 743–743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.
>Dawkins, R. (1997). "The Pope's message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 72 (4): 397–399. doi:10.1086/419951.
>Dawkins, R. (1998). "Postmodernism Disrobed". Nature. 394 (6689): 141–143. Bibcode:1998Natur.394..141D. doi:10.1038/28089.
>Dawkins, R. (1998). "Arresting evidence". The Sciences. 38 (6): 20–5. PMID 11657757. doi:10.1002/j.2326-1951.1998.tb03673.x.
>Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature. 405 (6788): 733. doi:10.1038/35015793.
>Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London. 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
>Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". In Warburton, N. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-33798-4.

lel

Science becomes more inaccurate and overly complex as it advances and the bad ideas are filtered out. A lot of what's on that graph is conjecture.

perfect post

But he's right. Theology is like woman's studies and doesn't belong in a university.
>He's an embarrassment to STEM because he makes fun of christianity which has nothing to do with his scientific work
You are a butthurt christcuck.

You can make Charles Darwin seem not very influential when you act like a faggot.

He spent the last 3 decades (30 years) debating against a position he knows literally nothing about. Do I even need to say how inane that is?
>But he says everything I want to hear...
You are the reason the fedora meme exists.

Go watch Dawkins speak about Islam, it's shallow as fuck based on a hand full of things he has heard secondhand. Then go watch Acts17Apologetics debunk Islam, it's all based on extensive arguments from the Islamic sources. It's night and day.

It's not what he's arguing, but how he's arguing it that makes him a joke.

>he knows nothing about
You mean you are a butthurt Christfag. He knows Religion is illogical. You don't have to know specific bible versus to know faith is retarded and islam is cancer.
>But he says everything I want to hear
Nice strawman retard. Either way this has nothing to do with his scientific accomplishments and everything to do with you being butthurt he isn't worshipping your kike on a stick.
>Watch him talk about Islam
I have. He knows the shit Islam pulls and doesn't bother arguing specific passages because that doesn't matter.

>Acts17Apologetics
He's a retarded Christfag who went from being an atheist to a Christian for illogical reasons. You are probably also a retarded Christfag.

Also
>They don't believe in science
This isn't a strawman. If you are a creationist it is because you really don't undertand how science works. This is just like how someone who doesn't know 2 times 3 is 6 doesn't understand Math.

Autism speaks

>Humans evolved from apes, just like all other animals evolved.
>There is solid evidence

>>>One of the best authors and most influential scientists in his field
>>One of the most influential scientists in his field

>after the selfish gene got BTFO by niche construction evo-devo behavioral evolution
From Wiki:
>Niche construction remains controversial.[2] Skeptics assert that aspects of niche construction theory (NCT) have been investigated for many decades before the term originated and the same predictions can be derived from standard evolutionary theory (modern synthesis).[14] They also argue that niche construction is not a distinct evolutionary process.

So, you're full of shit.

>evolutionist here
>evolutionist
>not Biology Major

wew lad

>Dawkins has never supported SJWs
He supports """mild""" pedophilia just like them and owns a "we wuz all kangz and sheeit" t-shirt.

>You mean you are a butthurt Christfag. He knows Religion is illogical. You don't have to know specific bible versus to know faith is retarded and islam is cancer.
That isn't a valid counter-argument. Strawman-arguments and ad-hominems do not make your point any truer. If you are going to have a discussion about a specific religion, it's retarded to spout irrelevant non-arguments if you wanted to have the discussion in the first place.
>But he says everything I want to hear
>Nice strawman retard. Either way this has nothing to do with his scientific accomplishments and everything to do with you being butthurt he isn't worshipping your kike on a stick
Oh, the irony.
>I have. He knows the shit Islam pulls and doesn't bother arguing specific passages because that doesn't matter.
Going back to the SJW thing, people are usually able to provide arguments against why women studies should not be considered a valid part of academia, people don't simply dismiss everything, you take claims and provide counter-arguments. By being autistic, you aren't (ironically) any better than an SJW who ignores arguments because they disagree with them since they are "bullshit."

I don't think you comprehend what "logic" is. Almost anything can be logical, although a lot of logical things can also be irrational and faulty.

>If strawberries are fruit, and strawberries are red, then therefore, all fruits are red.
This is still a logical statement, even if it is untrue. At least try to seem semi-intelligent went using words.

when*

>makes a logical fallacy
>claims it is logical

Incredible

I should amend this with
>if x is y
>and x is z
>then y is z

That's basically what you said and it is a logical fallacy.

If it's not logical then why is it called a logical fallacy?
Checkmate.

>Can't talk about him without scientists getting butthurt because he's a pseudo-intellectual joke.

fucking brainlet with your logical fallacy.

Piss off

>biology major
I never went to college.
Evolutionist is the proper term for someone dedicated to the study of evolution

>says I'm full of shit
>argues using Wikipedia
>doesn't even take the time to read the literature cited in Wikipedia
Come back with something substantive

>If strawberries are fruit, and strawberries are red, then therefore, all fruits are red.
>This is still a logical statement, even if it is untrue. At least try to seem semi-intelligent went using words.

Fucking pseuds on this board.

Not an argument Christfag.

He is a brilliant scientist who is philosophically narrow-minded. That's all there is to it.

He defended a minister which an SJW would never do.
>None of this post explains why he is a bad scientist
>It's just an user being mad that someone is shitting on theology which deserves to be shit on

Why is that? Because he hurt your feelings?

>I never went to college
>But I studied evolution
Thanks for being a namefag so I know everything that comes from you is retarded.

>Never went to college
>Yet calls himself an "evolutionist"
>Everything he said is bullshit
Come back when you know what you are talking about.

Well I fell for the gap year meme.
I've studied evolution since before I hit puberty. I spend around 5 hours a day studying, ecology and evolution I'm particularly intrested in Eco-evolutionary dynamics, behavioral evolution, and the like micro evolution has been relatively neglected by me. I'm extremely interested in emergence, complexity, synergy, adaptive behavior, networks, systems can sometimes be useful but i prefer to think in general properties rather than models. My intrests and knowlege in ecology and biodiversity are tldr. I am very into biosemiotics and the philsophy of life. My range of interests would embarrass an encyclopedia. I am a self taught generalist, my interests in macrobiology are the deepest.
I am not a researcher apart from hobby field biology.
This makes me no less of a scientist.
Here is a quote from Charles Sanders pierce, for me it is serendipity, as it describes a concept which I have constructed independently, and spent a great deal of time philosophizing about. Pic related. I research scientific facts using informal logic. I have a personality disorder characterized by detachment of my mind from experience and have internalized my interaction with the world. It is hard.

You indoctrinated fools are a shitstain on academia. If I could skip undergraduate school and your like I might partake. for now I am trying to become worthy of publishing on my own. It is hard

>i never went to college but I am totally the equivalent to a masters degree
Yeah user, and I study science 6 hours a day because I browse Veeky Forums. If you actually knew your shit you would easily get a degree then.

since you called me out let me tell ya something
I skimmed the cited "skeptic" and was less than not impressed, I will not respond to it however as it is not worth my time.
>the same predictions can be derived from standard evolutionary theory (modern synthesis
For kwick btfo see
>They also argue that niche construction is not a distinct evolutionary process.
It's not, I never said it was. I don't even subscribe to niche construction. If you where paying attention I was explaining what happened to Dawkins, not my own beliefs. I tried to tell you what I'm about hereFurther I have my own ideas
I believe biosemiosis is the general property of life at every scale of analysis.
I belive life is a single abstract entity that manifests itself in matter through meaning held in sign vessels.
I call it biosemiotic vitalism and you may hear about it if I overcome my mental illness and substance abuse hobbies. Assuming it would work out, I'm not saying I have answers but a hypothesis and a soild rational.

It isn't easy, I have never finished a major commitment in my life. As a lifelong biologist, my world is ripe with grief. What I do connect to, life, melts away from me.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder
>The literal meaning of the term "schizoid" is "split type". In line with this, the schizoid character has the tendency to cleave the unitary functioning of the personality. This means that thinking tends to be dissociated from feeling. So what the schizoid thinks seems to have little apparent connection with how he feels or behaves. As a consequence, the contact of the individual with his own body and its feelings is greatly diminished.[15]
I never said I have the equivalent of a masters degree. I said I would like to skip undergraduate school because people like you creep me out.
And I read scientific literature.

>As a biologist
>Never went to college
>But calls himself a biologist
This is bait.

Sorry about this guys, I was just trolling.

Neither was that wall of autistic screeching.

>what I don't like is illogical
>you don't need facts to call it cancer
>he has an opinion different from mine, therefore he's retarded, illogical and all his arguments are to be disregarded

fuck off

Atleast change your name to retard god if you want to false flag

>You don't need facts to call Islam cancer
It grows like a cancer and it is deadly like one. I bet you are mad that you can't chop off my head for insulting Islam.

I'm sorry for ruining a thread with my shitty namefaggotry and attention whoring. I wont stop but just know I do it because I need attention.

>All this theist butthurt
What does this have to do with Richard Dawkins being a good scientist or writer? I wont call Einstein a bad scientist because he was religious, so why must Christfags get mad at Dawkins for being an atheist outside of his scientific career?

What is that plastic faced abomination?

are you talking about this thread or in general? It seems to me you're using 'hurr christians' as a strawman

No, Straws look like dicks and that turns me on.

Nope. The point of the thread was to ignore religion but idiots keep bringing up his religious beliefs for no reason other than because it upsets them. One user brought up an alternate way of looking at natural selection but it isn't as supported or defined as the Gene centric view of evolution. Even then alternate models don't make the past model useless.

meant for

>muh christfag boogieman

Maybe, just maybe, people hate dawkins because he just sucks.

>but idiots keep bringing up his religious beliefs for no reason other than because it upsets them

The only reason Dawkins is even noteworthy [math]IS[/math] because of his religious beliefs. That's why he's famous and other popsci writers like Brian Greene aren't.

The gene centric veiw of evolution is just plain silly.
Only a molecular biologist would think that genes are the only biological code capable of transferring heritable traits.
all genes do is represent meaning
Meaning is what is being selected, behavoir is the primary capacitor, and DNA is just one of many signifiers. Such as ecological interactions, niche construction, language, and many more.
The problem is you are all using the old guard paradigm that makes this way too complicated.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18365164/
This makes more sense

I would actually appreciate if you have me no attention at all. As you haven't said anything interesting. You are 100% cringe and need to gb2/b/
Go start a flame war on a dumbo board.

>He sucks
At what? Not biology clearly and when the only argument against him is that you don't like what he says about religion that it's pretty safe to assume they are just a butthurt christian.

>I am an underage faggot who has never heard of The Selfish gene or knows that he literally invented the word meme.