Essay talk:Dawkins Legacy

Nice, but you could have just posted "I have no idea what I'm talking about" and saved me a read. Nog Bogmire (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

that's a meaningless comment. If you disagree with me... I want to hear why. I can also drop meaningless sarcastic one liners. But than I would be as unintelligent as you! Your cringe worthy fail at trolling me backfiresKingdamian1 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you because there's nothing to disagree with. You clearly have no idea what working in evolutionary biology entails and are just making shit up. You might as well say we don't need neuroscience anymore because you only really have to know about that brain thingy.

But hey, if you want an answer, here you go. Nog Bogmire (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I am NOT here to argue about evolution or what a beautiful idea it is. I could say briefly, that I personally believe that we would have found out that some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, that fitter organisms have more chances of survival etc etc. We are talking about a SCIENTIST who is a biologist and an ethologist (animal behavior). Not a biology teacher. On the rare occasion that he is not trying to "disprove God", all he does is express homo-erotic love towards Charles Darwin. Take Lawrence Krauss... Another atheist. He talks about his idea of universe from nothing... But he moves on. He DOES ACTUALLY have interest in physics. Has Dawkins ever had a documentary, book, or a scientific paper that concerns research in anatomy, physiology, animal behavior outside of "Darwin's beautiful mind context"? Even his pre-Selfish Gene works concern ONLY evolution. That's the point here. And all you did was take one part and start arguing... If I am a Cardiologist who ONLY knows about Arrythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy, do you come to me? If a dentist can only clean wisdom teeth, do you go to them? I AM NOT ARGUING ABOUT EVOLUTION. ThanksKingdamian1 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography

You could have just done that yourself, you know. And if you're a cardiologist you're studying biology from the perspective of a technician, not a scholar. It's like a nuclear reactor tech asking why Einstein only concerned himself with abstract physics rather than making something useful. Nog Bogmire (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

you're making stuff up... I never said that abstract biology is useless. I am not even talking about evolutionary biology... I am not talking about the usefulness of disciplines. I am talking about a person, Richard Dawkins. I have checked his bibliography...

Dawkins is a SCIENTIST... If Dawkins has applied his evolutionary views to creating a new vaccine... then let me know... Most of the time he talks about biology, it is meaningless stuff... like why would evolution preserve a homosexual gene. Evolutionary view of altruistic behavior. The beauty of evolution vs religion. Do u get it? I respect abstract thinking. NEVER WOULD I EVER display such arrogance and ignorance... to ask such stupid questions to a biologist or whoever....Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

So philosophical discussion is useless? Discussing what the possible benefits of particular behaviours are in light of the evolutionary model is useless? Compared to what? How "useful" is, say, the entire field of palaeontology? Should they come back when they've examined something that's alive since that might be of use to us now? Also you are talking about evolutionary biology since you called evolution a "meaningless topic," can you at least keep your own bullshit straight please? Nog Bogmire (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

you are yet again trying to make this debate about evolution. Of course a biologist can have discussions like that. But when a scientist (a SCIENTIST I REPEAT) talks about literally NOTHING ELSE...That's where my point comes inKingdamian1 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the highlight of Dawkins' scientific career? PROVING EVOLUTION IS TRUE... Not research in evolution etc. NO! Paleontology is NOT useless... But if a highlight of a paleontologist's career was proving what a brilliant man Stephen J Gould was and how Punctuated Equilibriae is true... Then you would be agreeing with me!Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't prove anything is true in science, I believe you means "presenting support for evolution." Which is a perfectly valid thing for an evolutionary biologist to do. Also, your creationist strawman is a little pathetic, the original framework Darwin came up with is hardly the same as the modern synthesis. Nog Bogmire (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You are trying to start a creation-evolution debate, and I'm not falling! I did not say it was wrong for him to defend it... It should not highlight his SCIENTIFIC career... Do u get it? Earlier in his life he studied and researched decision making in animals... WHY THE HELL DON'T we see documentaries or lectures about it anymore? Richard Dawkins as a scientist is synonymous with evolution... That's what I was saying... All you are trying to prove is that biology isn't useless... WHICH I AGREE WITH!!!!!!!!!! Dawkins' scientific career is highlighted by his homo-erotic love of Darwin... And the defense of evolution... Which is pretty bad if you started out as a RESEARCHER of animal behavior (many frontiers in this field)... Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not bothering to reply to you anymore, all you do is circle back to the same stupid claim over and over. Bye! Nog Bogmire (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)