Agemegos

I understand from autobiographical references that it is in zoology. Specifically ethology. He was a student of Tinbergen.

I gather from one oblique reference (not autobiographical) that it had to do with eliciting preference data from the behaviour of chickens, and that it involved a clever gadget of his own devising and a fairly impressive piece of 'evidence-based reasoning'. His post-doctoral research involved studying sexual selection in birds and mathematical modelling of the evolutionary effects of sexual selection. This seems a bit surprising, because Dawkins comes across in his books as someone who has to struggle with mathematics. But I guess that mathematical modelling of selection processes was very much the cutting edge so soon after Hamilton published his work on kin selection (which was 1964, IIRC).

Agemegos

I've found non-autobiographical material. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...aphy/bio.shtml Dawkins took his DPhil in ethology, under Tinbergen.

TomboyMom

I'm confused by this sentence. Are you saying that you believe that macro-evolution occurs, that is, that species do change over time into other species, but that...umm, something else doesn't occur? Could you clarify what aspects of evolutionary theory you believe to be factual and what aspects not factual? Thank you.

buckshot23

Genetic change occurs. Is this genetic change the source of all the diversity in the biosphere? I don't think so. Speciation occurs many call this macroevolution. I don't. So in short speciation and genetic change occurs but that cannot account for the origin of all of the biodiversity on this planet.

Plognark

Sure it can

buckshot23

No it can't. to infinity.

Flint

What really came through in Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale was just how much Deep Time we're talking about here. I think bucky's rejection may relate to this inability (which Dawkins admits is tough to do. We might be able to grasp two or even three human lifespans. A billion years? Nahhh).

What allows "speciation and genetic change" to "account for the origin of all of the biodiversity on this planet" is sheer time. Perhaps bucky is looking at how very very tiny evolution's steps are in two or even three human lifespans, and his ability to extrapolate is exhausted. Like watching a snail for an hour, after which it has traveled maybe 12-18 inches. Yes, no denying the snail is moving. But to reach a city a thousand miles away? Are you kidding? Why, that would take...well, forever! Hell, bucky's children will have died of old age before that snail even reaches Elm Street.

Albion

Apart from the "in education," I'd agree. He manages to give the impression that his PhD is directly relevant to evolution, age-of-the-earth stuff, and, of course, dinosaurs. The fact that it's actually in education (Christian education specifically, IIRC) seems to be kept fairly quiet.

I've seen Ken Ham referred to by at least one creationist as a "great scientist." I'm not sure what his degree is in, but it's a general rather than specific subject as far as I remember.

Worldtraveller

There fixed it for you.

If you can explain and/or demonstrate why you don't think descent with modification can account for all the biodiversity we see, please give us an idea of what you think it is that prevents it? In other words, why can't we count to a billion one at a time?

Cheers,
Lane

Richard Forrest

That's what the biologists who study the subject think.
So what? You won't even reveal the basis of your beliefs, let alone why you don't accept the conclusion that virtually all biologists who have worked in the field have come to.
So what? What contributions have you made to evolutionary science which gives you the knowledge and insight to determine that a word should not be used in the way it has been for decades by evolutionary scientists?
And on what basis do you make this assertion?

You don't do so on the basis of the evidence.

Your literal interpretation of the biblical text differs from that of others who also claim that they are interpreting the same text literally. On what basis have you determined that you are right and they are wrong?

You have a different view of many aspects of creationists than that of other creationists. AiG, for example, do not use your get-out clause that there are miraculous events involved, but claim that the are scientific in their approach. Why do you think that they are wrong and you are right?

You seem to have nothing but a vague belief that something is wrong with evolutionary theory, yet offer no evidence to support your belief, no explanation of why your beliefs differ from those of other operating under the same label of "creationist", and no basis for your belief other than your personal interpretation of a highly ambigious text.

I'm sure your honest, but you seem deeply confused. The fact that you won't address these questions suggests that you are in denial. Perhaps if you devoted some thought to the epistemology of your beliefs you would gain some clarity of insight.

Richard Forrest