This is gonna sound like a weird question....

[seeking1]

...but what exact scientific/biological contributions has Richard Dawkins made?

[future_doc]

google him

[Apixaban85]

...but what exact scientific/biological contributions has Richard Dawkins made?

 

1960s

 

* Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–86. PMID 5684149.

* Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.

 

1970s

 

* Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". in Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

* Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature (London: Nature Publishing Group) 262: 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.

* Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). "The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?". Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479–484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3. PMID 1011857.

* Dawkins, R. (1976). "Universal Darwinism". in Bendall, D.S.. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–425.

* Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. PMID 696023.

* Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). "Animal signals: information or manipulation". Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282–309.

* Dawkins, R. (1979) "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51, 184-200.

* Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979). "Arms races between and within species". Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. PMID 42057.

* 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: 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. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3. PMID 491692.

 

1980s

 

* Dawkins, R. (1980). "Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy". in Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J.. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331–337. ISBN 0-89-158960-0.

* 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, Richard (1981). "In defence of selfish genes". Philosophy 56 (218): 556–573. doi:10.1017/S0031819100050580.

* Krebs, J.R.; Dawkins, R. (1984). "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation". in Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N.B.. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 380–402.

 

1990s

 

* Dawkins, R. (1990). "Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism". Parasitology 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.

* Dawkins, R. (June 1991). "Evolution of the Mind". Nature 351 (6329): 686.

* Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube". Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. doi:10.1038/357198a0. PMID 1375346.

* Dawkins, R. (1994). "Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling". Nature 368 (6473): 690–1. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.

* Dawkins, R. (September 1995). "The Evolved Imagination". Natural History 104 (9): 8.

* Dawkins, R. (December 1994). "Burying The Vehicle" ([dead link]). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994burying_the_vehicle.shtml.

* Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). "Religion and Science". BioEssays 19 (8): 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.

* Dawkins, R. (1998). "Intellectual Imposters". Nature 394 (6689): 141–143.

* Dawkins, R. (1998). "Arresting evidence". Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–25. PMID 11657757.

 

2000s

 

* Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature 405 (6788): 733.

* Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.

* Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?". Nature 421 (6921): 314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.

* Dawkins, R. (2003). "The evolution of evolvability". On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.

* Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". in Warburton, N.. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-41-533798-4.

* Dawkins, R. (June 2004). "Extended phenotype - But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jjablonka". Biology & Physiology 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.

[cgardiner]

1960s

 

* Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–86. PMID 5684149.

* Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.

 

1970s

 

* Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". in Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

* Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature (London: Nature Publishing Group) 262: 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.

* Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). "The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?". Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479–484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3. PMID 1011857.

* Dawkins, R. (1976). "Universal Darwinism". in Bendall, D.S.. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–425.

* Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. PMID 696023.

* Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). "Animal signals: information or manipulation". Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282–309.

* Dawkins, R. (1979) "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51, 184-200.

* Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979). "Arms races between and within species". Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. PMID 42057.

* 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: 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. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3. PMID 491692.

 

1980s

 

* Dawkins, R. (1980). "Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy". in Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J.. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331–337. ISBN 0-89-158960-0.

* 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, Richard (1981). "In defence of selfish genes". Philosophy 56 (218): 556–573. doi:10.1017/S0031819100050580.

* Krebs, J.R.; Dawkins, R. (1984). "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation". in Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N.B.. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 380–402.

 

1990s

 

* Dawkins, R. (1990). "Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism". Parasitology 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.

* Dawkins, R. (June 1991). "Evolution of the Mind". Nature 351 (6329): 686.

* Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube". Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. doi:10.1038/357198a0. PMID 1375346.

* Dawkins, R. (1994). "Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling". Nature 368 (6473): 690–1. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.

* Dawkins, R. (September 1995). "The Evolved Imagination". Natural History 104 (9): 8.

* Dawkins, R. (December 1994). "Burying The Vehicle" ([dead link]). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994burying_the_vehicle.shtml.

* Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). "Religion and Science". BioEssays 19 (8): 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.

* Dawkins, R. (1998). "Intellectual Imposters". Nature 394 (6689): 141–143.

* Dawkins, R. (1998). "Arresting evidence". Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–25. PMID 11657757.

 

2000s

 

* Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature 405 (6788): 733.

* Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.

* Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?". Nature 421 (6921): 314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.

* Dawkins, R. (2003). "The evolution of evolvability". On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.

* Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". in Warburton, N.. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-41-533798-4.

* Dawkins, R. (June 2004). "Extended phenotype - But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jjablonka". Biology & Physiology 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.

 

It really is a shame.. the title 'atheist' labels a person as being evil or something.. at least where im from.

[seeking1]

Prateek, I can copy-paste wiki too. f_d, i did google him, try to figure it all out, and failed, so I asked an honest question.

 

Being atheist is fine by me, I don't mind at all.

 

The problem I have is that his one major idea, the gene-centered view of evolution, is blatantly wrong. There is clear evidence these days that even proteins can evolve, and they have no genes.

 

So my question becomes, why does he think science necessarily backs atheism, when science is not used to answer supernatural questions?

[seeking1]

Hell, the majority of his papers after 1990 don't even sound scientific, they just sound like him commenting on the daily news.

[A-Stark]

A curious comment. I think you should review the central dogma, transcription regulation, things like alternative splicing, and selection pressures. I don't know enough about Dawkins' arguments to comment otherwise, but it seems that genetic changes affecting protein structures, levels and types of expression, and regulation are rather key. Proteins don't get passed on from generation-to-generation in a meaningful sense... so I don't follow you.

 

Prateek, I can copy-paste wiki too. f_d, i did google him, try to figure it all out, and failed, so I asked an honest question.

 

Being atheist is fine by me, I don't mind at all.

 

The problem I have is that his one major idea, the gene-centered view of evolution, is blatantly wrong. There is clear evidence these days that even proteins can evolve, and they have no genes.

 

So my question becomes, why does he think science necessarily backs atheism, when science is not used to answer supernatural questions?

[seeking1]

Prions can evolve, in the sense that mutation and natural selection affect them.

 

But they are made entirely of proteins. No genes present.

[itimebomb2]

...but what exact scientific/biological contributions has Richard Dawkins made?

 

None at all. A good businessman, and a friend of morons.

 

Man, just look at the title of his papers - this guy doesn't aim to contribute to the body of knowledge, he's just trying to stir crap up! He's obviously just preying on weak-minded controversy addicts who would soak up and street-preach any moderately convincing argument, making-up facts or ignoring huge bodies of knowledge to prove his aimless point. What a buffoon.

[DOC_Ma]

Prateek, I can copy-paste wiki too. f_d, i did google him, try to figure it all out, and failed, so I asked an honest question.

 

Being atheist is fine by me, I don't mind at all.

 

The problem I have is that his one major idea, the gene-centered view of evolution, is blatantly wrong. There is clear evidence these days that even proteins can evolve, and they have no genes.

 

So my question becomes, why does he think science necessarily backs atheism, when science is not used to answer supernatural questions?

 

 

 

Proteins "evolve" due to the change of the genes that make them. You don't inherit protein you inherit genes which evolve and then as a result its products "evolve" or change along with it. So in the end it is still the genes that evolve not proteins.

[Greyhound]

isn't atheism simply the belief that there is no God, or some type of supreme being that created us all? if that's the case then, science does back up this belief that we were not simply created by some superior being rather we were just a coincidence of a chemical soup that eventually evolved through natural selection

[WaveSense]

Prions can evolve, in the sense that mutation and natural selection affect them.

 

But they are made entirely of proteins. No genes present.

 

I think you're really understating the complexity of prions. The study you cite was only published this year and really is a novel finding that needs to be repeated and studied to understand what is really happening. Maybe the prions that are best suited for their new environment can somehow modify the host DNA, who knows? There's no consensus yet on how prions replicate. The protein hypothesis can definitely be true, but to state that the 'gene-centered view of evolution is blatantly wrong based on 1 recent publication is kinda premature.

[Apixaban85]

isn't atheism simply the belief that there is no God, or some type of supreme being that created us all? if that's the case then, science does back up this belief that we were not simply created by some superior being rather we were just a coincidence of a chemical soup that eventually evolved through natural selection

 

Well the standpoint of some religions at least is looking farther back than the beginning of human life and the actual creation of the universe. I'm sure some religious people would be able to argue that maybe it was God that did, in fact, create the first RNA molecules to begin life on the planet or that God intended for life to being like that. It's only the ultra-religious people who say that life started with Adam and Eve for example.

[seeking1]

I think you're really understating the complexity of prions. The study you cite was only published this year and really is a novel finding that needs to be repeated and studied to understand what is really happening. Maybe the prions that are best suited for their new environment can somehow modify the host DNA, who knows? There's no consensus yet on how prions replicate. The protein hypothesis can definitely be true, but to state that the 'gene-centered view of evolution is blatantly wrong based on 1 recent publication is kinda premature.

 

WaveSense, I actually agree with you, and realize now I jumped to conclusions. It would seem to make sense, though, if evolution/natural selection worked on proteins and phenotype/phenome more than it did on genes/genotype.

 

Prions are an exciting new field of research, though, for proteins/biochemistry, neuroscience, physiology and pathology, and for evolution in general. THEY HAVE NO GENES. :eek:

 

itimebomb2, my point was that I wanted to put aside Dawkins's atheism advocacy and not analyze what it has to do with science, not say that hes wrong or a moron.

[Nutrition major]

It is fine for a scientist who is dealing with insects and animals to be an atheist.

 

But as medical doctors we will be dealing with sick people who may be helped by being encouraged to look to their faith in God. Patients can be reminded that the hospital has chaplains on staff who will visit patients in their rooms free of charge. Patients can be encouraged to ask members of their faith community to pray for them. We should never under estimate the power of prayer to relax and comfort a patient. Many people have been miraculous healed in the past. The Vatican archives contain countless medical records of people healed miraculously. Instantaneous healing through prayer still happens.

I have seen evidence of it here in Kingston.

[seeking1]

It is fine for a scientist who is dealing with insects and animals to be an atheist.

 

But as medical doctors we will be dealing with sick people who may be helped by being encouraged to look to their faith in God. Patients can be reminded that the hospital has chaplains on staff who will visit patients in their rooms free of charge. Patients can be encouraged to ask members of their faith community to pray for them. We should never under estimate the power of prayer to relax and comfort a patient. Many people have been miraculous healed in the past. The Vatican archives contain countless medical records of people healed miraculously. Instantaneous healing through prayer still happens.

I have seen evidence of it here in Kingston.

 

...what does this have to do with anything I am talking about?

[oto]

Wow, I understand people attacking Hitchens because he shoves religion where it belongs without even trying to word sentences nicely.

 

It's quite evident that most people in his thread and around the world that are anti-Dawkins are usually in that state because of insecurity in their religion being disproved. Note that I said 'most people', not "all".

 

Have some class, Dawkins is a rational and reasonable figure. He makes cogently neutral statements. There's no need to question his scientific contributions, they're there for you to see.

 

This thread is not here because of a question of Dawkin's scientific contributions, it's here because he politely and logically disproves islam and christianity in so many ways.

Just relax and learn, nobody is forcing you to give up your beliefs.

[blind_synergy]

It is fine for a scientist who is dealing with insects and animals to be an atheist.

 

But as medical doctors we will be dealing with sick people who may be helped by being encouraged to look to their faith in God. Patients can be reminded that the hospital has chaplains on staff who will visit patients in their rooms free of charge. Patients can be encouraged to ask members of their faith community to pray for them. We should never under estimate the power of prayer to relax and comfort a patient. Many people have been miraculous healed in the past. The Vatican archives contain countless medical records of people healed miraculously. Instantaneous healing through prayer still happens.

I have seen evidence of it here in Kingston.

 

While I grant you that a positive attitude (which, in some cases, I suppose can be a belief in a personal god) can do wonders for some patients, your remarks on the existence of 'miracles' are mind boggling. While I wouldn't be one to take away someone's source of comfort, I feel that, as you likely aspire to be a future doctor, someone should tell you this: You're delusional.

 

What is more likely (to paraphrase David Hume): That the laws of nature have suspended themselves for someone's benefit or that you are under some sort of misapprehension?

 

The discussion of medical miracles always reminds me of some natural disaster that kills untold numbers; an unharmed baby is found amid the wreckage and people immediately call this a miracle. Yeah, just forget basic probability and, even worse, forget all the other children who somehow weren't important enough to live. I guess the baby just prayed enough.

[blind_synergy]

isn't atheism simply the belief that there is no God, or some type of supreme being that created us all? if that's the case then, science does back up this belief that we were not simply created by some superior being rather we were just a coincidence of a chemical soup that eventually evolved through natural selection

 

The answer to your (rhetorical) question is no. Atheism, at least the way new atheists define it, is the belief that there is no evidence for creator and that we should simply forget about religion and the ridiculous dogma that follows from it. After all, the burden of the proof lies upon the person who makes the claim. If the government decides to allocate millions of defense dollars to protect us against zombies, should they not be able to prove that their fear is rational (i.e. that zombies exist and present a danger to the populace)?

 

We need evidence to sort the diamonds from the massive pile of **** that is the collective human conscience.

[oto]

It is fine for a scientist who is dealing with insects and animals to be an atheist.

 

But as medical doctors we will be dealing with sick people who may be helped by being encouraged to look to their faith in God. Patients can be reminded that the hospital has chaplains on staff who will visit patients in their rooms free of charge. Patients can be encouraged to ask members of their faith community to pray for them. We should never under estimate the power of prayer to relax and comfort a patient. Many people have been miraculous healed in the past. The Vatican archives contain countless medical records of people healed miraculously. Instantaneous healing through prayer still happens.

I have seen evidence of it here in Kingston.

 

While I grant you that a positive attitude (which, in some cases, I suppose can be a belief in a personal god) can do wonders for some patients, your remarks on the existence of 'miracles' are mind boggling. While I wouldn't be one to take away someone's source of comfort, I feel that, as you likely aspire to be a future doctor, someone should tell you this: You're delusional.

 

What is more likely (to paraphrase David Hume): That the laws of nature have suspended themselves for someone's benefit or that you are under some sort of misapprehension?

 

This always reminds me of some natural disaster that kills untold numbers; an unharmed baby is found amid the wreckage and people immediately call this a miracle. Yeah, just forget basic probability and, even worse, forget all the other children who somehow weren't important enough to live. I guess the baby just prayed enough.

 

Hm, your reponse sounds a lot like a portion of a hitchens answer.

 

The problem with miracles (David Humes citation included): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh8XcchN8Ic

[thebouque]

It is fine for a scientist who is dealing with insects and animals to be an atheist.

 

But as medical doctors we will be dealing with sick people who may be helped by being encouraged to look to their faith in God. Patients can be reminded that the hospital has chaplains on staff who will visit patients in their rooms free of charge. Patients can be encouraged to ask members of their faith community to pray for them. We should never under estimate the power of prayer to relax and comfort a patient. Many people have been miraculous healed in the past. The Vatican archives contain countless medical records of people healed miraculously. Instantaneous healing through prayer still happens.

I have seen evidence of it here in Kingston.

 

That's really insulting for those of us who are atheist. I could very well reply to you: how can prayers heal since God does not exist?

Of course that's not what I'd say because my opinion is more nuanced, and so should be yours.

[blind_synergy]

Hm, your reponse sounds a lot like a portion of a hitchens answer.

 

The problem with miracles (David Humes citation included): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh8XcchN8Ic

 

Hmm, Hitchens's response sounds a lot like a portion of a Hume argument.

 

Though, I grant you, I came across that clip a while ago. Or I'm actually Hitchens himself.

[nosuperman]

That's really insulting for those of us who are atheist. I could very well reply to you: how can prayers heal since God does not exist?

Of course that's not what I'd say because my opinion is more nuanced, and so should be yours.

 

You could point to the numerous studies that show no correlation between prayer and patient outcome and say with certainty that if God does in fact exist, he at least doesn't listen to prayers... or if he does... he does so in a way that exactly mimics the outcomes of a non-praying control group.

[blind_synergy]

You could point to the numerous studies that show no correlation between prayer and patient outcome.

 

Everyone knows those studies were funded by the pharmalogical companies! They don't want you to believe in the secret power of prayer or, more importantly, homeopathy. Don't you see it, man?!? The Illuminati are in on it, too!

[oto]

Everyone knows those studies were funded by the pharmalogical companies! They don't want you to believe in the secret power of prayer or, more importantly, homeopathy. Don't you see it, man?!? The Illuminati are in on it, too!

 

hahahhha lol

Those damn athiests, they're possessed by the devil. So are the pharmalogical companies.. so is every other person speaking out against us!