Richard Dawkins answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman's College

[NeoSeminole]

Yes, evolution has been observed happening around us, during our lifetimes. For example, have you heard that some HIV strains that are resistant to meds have evolved?

don't bother entertaining his nonsense. It's obvious from the quote that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a large scale. Here is the rest of the interview which Loco conveniently left out.

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed.

DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you - the detective - hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue.

[NeoSeminole]

I didn't think so either.  lol

of course you're not going to admit when your side is losing. Who does? After all, this is the internet.

[loco]

don't bother entertaining his nonsense. It's obvious from the quote that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a large scale. Here is the rest of the interview which Loco conveniently left out.

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed.

DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you - the detective - hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue.

And what did you add to this that makes it any better?

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Yes, it is a fact

No he did not say that, did he?  Why not?  He said

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

 

[loco]

of course you're not going to admit when your side is losing. Who does? After all, this is the internet.

Losing?  Is this what it's all about for you?  This is supposed to be about spreading the truth, for both sides.

Personally, I thank God for skeptics.  There are many skeptics here who are seekers.  Some don't even post, but are reading our posts.  If it wasn't for skeptics, we would not be having these discussions, which I believe do not happen by accident and have a divine purpose.

[NeoSeminole]

And what did you add to this that makes it any better?

to distinguish between micro- and macroevolution. It's apparent that you either don't know the difference or are purposely being deceitful by quote mining.

[loco]

to distinguish between micro- and macroevolution. It's apparent that you either don't know the difference or are purposely being deceitful by quote miming.

Or maybe there is another alternative, that I do know the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and that I am not purposely being deceitful by quote mining, but that I am simply responding to your insult of OzmO's intelligence when he asked the same question that Bill Moyers asked Dawkins, as if your insults validate your argument.

ok.......  but why is it still called theory?  Why is not a 100% fact?

wow, just wow. You made yourself look very ignorant.

[columbusdude82]

Far be it for loco to ever go quote mining...

[loco]

Far be it for loco to ever go quote mining...

If I pull statements out of my butt without quotes and without citations, as many here do, then I am making stuff up.

If I make a statement and back it up with quotes, citations and sources, then I am quote mining.

 

I list my sources so that you may go check them out for yourselves, as NeoSeminole did with Moyers.  Great job!  So what did I leave out that made such a huge difference?  Dawkins was asked a simple question.  Is evolution a fact?  Dawkins answered Yes, evolution is fact?  No, he did not.

[NeoSeminole]

Or maybe there is another alternative, that I do know the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and that I am not purposely being deceitful by quote mining, but that I am simply responding to your insult of OzmO's intelligence when he asked the same question that Bill Moyers asked Dawkins, as if your insults validate your argument.

OzmO asked me why evolution is a theory instead of a fact AFTER I explained to him the distinction between both, hence my astonishment at his response.

evolution is both a fact and theory. There is no doubt that changes in species occur over time. The mechanism responsible for this natural phenomena is explained by the theory of evolution.

ok.......  but why is it still called theory?  Why is not a 100% fact?

[NeoSeminole]

loco, you can provide sources for your quotes and still be guilty of quote mining. The problem with your Dawkins comment is that it was taken out of context. By reading the rest of the interview, it's obvious that he was referring to evolution on a much grander scale than, say, a bacteria mutating into a new species.

[loco]

loco, you can provide sources for your quotes and still be guilty of quote mining. The problem with your Dawkins comment is that it was taken out of context. By reading the rest of the interview, it's obvious that he was referring to evolution on a much grander scale than, say, a bacteria mutating into a new species.

Moyers did not ask Dawkins "Is macro-evolution a fact?"

Okay.  So you are saying that evolution on a much grander scale, such as bacteria mutating into a new species is not a fact.

[columbusdude82]

loco, if you are referring to that particular interview, Dawkins discusses it in his book "The Devil's Chaplain." He tells of how he was 'ambushed' by a bunch of Australian creationists who disguised themselves in order to get the interview with him, and then messed around with the tape.

A leading world authority on biology and Oxford University professor doesn't get stumped on trivial questions

[NeoSeminole]

Moyers did not ask Dawkins "Is macro-evolution a fact?"

no, but macroevolution is what most people think of when they hear the term "evolution." I believe Dawkins was purposely 'dumbing down' his responses in order to reach a broader audience.

Okay.  So you are saying that evolution on a much grander scale, such as bacteria mutating into a new species is not a fact.

I gave the example of a bacteria mutating into another species to show what Dawkins was not referring to. Evolution on a large scale is a fact. The mechanism responsible for this change over time is described by the theory of evolution. In science, a theory can never become fact. Gravity is also both a fact and theory. It's a fact that if you throw an object into the air, it will fall back down to earth. The theory of gravity explains why larger bodies of mass attract smaller bodies.

[Colossus_500]

of course you're not going to admit when your side is losing. Who does? After all, this is the internet.

que? 

it's not about winning or losing, Neo.  at least it isn't for me, but maybe that's what it's all about for you. 

[loco]

no, but macroevolution is what most people think of when they hear the term "evolution." I believe Dawkins was purposely 'dumbing down' his responses in order to reach a broader audience.

I gave the example of a bacteria mutating into another species to show what Dawkins was not referring to. Evolution on a large scale is a fact. The mechanism responsible for this change over time is described by the theory of evolution. In science, a theory can never become fact. Gravity is also both a fact and theory. It's a fact that if throw an object into the air, it will fall back down to earth. The theory of gravity explains why larger bodies of mass attract smaller bodies.

Has evolution on a much grander scale, such as bacteria mutating into a new species, been observed while it is happening?  Has macro-evolution been observed while it is happening?

[OzmO]

This is certainly far and deep into a subject I'm obviously not too versed on. 

But i do have some questions:

Is it a proven fact that we evolved from apes?

If yes, what of the "missing link"?  Or is that a BS thing made up by opponents of evolution?

P.S.,  Whether we evolved from apes or not, wouldn't change my belief in God.   My belief in God isn't based on the Bible's creation story.

[columbusdude82]

 OzmO, we ARE apes. We are a species of African apes. Our closest living relatives in the ape genus are chimpanzees. We and the chimpanzees have a last common ancestor that lived about 6 million years ago. This has been proven definitively, regardless of what the likes of loco might tell you

[OzmO]

OzmO, we ARE apes. We are a species of African apes. Our closest living relatives in the ape genus are chimpanzees. We and the chimpanzees have a last common ancestor that lived about 6 million years ago. This has been proven definitively, regardless of what the likes of loco might tell you

You might be an ape  and I might be in denial, but i don;t remember ever seeing anything in the last 10 years, in the main stream media or a main stream publication saying this has been proven.

[columbusdude82]

It was proven well over 10 years ago. It is old news, as newsworthy as "Hey did you hear they tore down the Berlin wall?"

[OzmO]

It was proven well over 10 years ago. It is old news, as newsworthy as "Hey did you hear they tore down the Berlin wall?"

They did?  j/k



I don't recall.

Perhaps neo can provide some thing on it.

[columbusdude82]

Perhaps you can use Google or any search engine of your choice, or perhaps even go to a library!

[OTHstrong]

OzmO, we ARE apes. We are a species of African apes. Our closest living relatives in the ape genus are chimpanzees. We and the chimpanzees have a last common ancestor that lived about 6 million years ago. This has been proven definitively, regardless of what the likes of loco might tell you

Oh ya its been proven (macro-evolution), when dr.Brown built a time machine and actually met some of our ancesters.

[nzhardgain]

Columbusdude  lying again.When was this proven  that we are relatives of the ape?Also still waiting on YOUR fossil evidence to prove that we evolved from apes.Its not up to us as non believers in your theory to provide the evidence,the burden of proof is upon you my short friend.


Come up with evidence beyond reasonable doubt (not artists drawings) solid fossil proof whether it be full skeletons, families, mass graves etc whatever.

Heres the thing,you come up anything beyond reasonable doubt ill firstly delete my account here never again to call you out on your crap.

You cant...you either bactrack on all your bs or remove thy fatass from here...deal?

[NeoSeminole]

Has evolution on a much grander scale, such as bacteria mutating into a new species, been observed while it is happening?  Has macro-evolution been observed while it is happening?

why are you asking me questions that you can easily find the answer to online?

[NeoSeminole]

Is it a proven fact that we evolved from apes?

evolution predicts that humans and apes share a common ancestor. You could say this is a proven fact thanks to the insurmountable evidence that supports this hypothesis.

If yes, what of the "missing link"?  Or is that a BS thing made up by opponents of evolution?

it's virtually impossible to identify a missing link. We may find a fossil that looks promising but that doesn't mean we won't find a fossil that more closely 'fits the bill," so to speak, in the future.