The Greatest Show on Earth

[McCulloch]

Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by all reputable scientists and indeed theologians, yet millions of people continue to question its veracity. In “The Greatest Show on Earth�, Richard Dawkins takes on creationists, including followers of ‘Intelligent Design’ and all those who question the fact of evolution through natural selection. Like a detective arriving on the scene of a crime, he sifts through fascinating layers of scientific facts and disciplines to build a cast-iron case: from the living examples of natural selection in birds and insects; the ‘time clocks’ of trees and radioactive dating that calibrate a timescale for evolution; the fossil record and the traces of our earliest ancestors; to confirmation from molecular biology and genetics. All of this, and much more, bears witness to the truth of evolution.

Richard Dawkins [...] explains that all of his previous books have naïvely assumed the fact of evolution, which meant that he never got around to laying out the evidence that it [evolution] is true. [...]So Dawkins decided to write a book [...] in which he would dispassionately demonstrate the truth of evolution beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt. [...]It succeeds as an encyclopedic summary of evolutionary biology. [...]What Dawkins demonstrates is that this view of life isn't just grand: it's also undeniably true.

The Greatest Show on Earth is a stunning counterattack on advocates of "Intelligent Design," explaining the evidence for evolution while exposing the absurdities of the creationist "argument." Dawkins sifts through rich layers of scientific evidence: from living examples of natural selection to clues in the fossil record; from natural clocks that mark the vast epochs wherein evolution ran its course to the intricacies of developing embryos; from plate tectonics to molecular genetics. Combining these elements and many more, he makes the airtight case that "we find ourselves perched on one tiny twig in the midst of a blossoming and flourishing tree of life and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random selection."

Question for debate: Has Richard Dawkins succeeded in his goal? Does this book lay out the evidence that make an airtight case for evolution?

[nygreenguy]

Question for debate: Has Richard Dawkins succeeded in his goal? Does this book lay out the evidence that make an airtight case for evolution?

Only if you assume that people have the ability to put behind them what they WANT to believe (cognitive dissonance). For many, no amount of evidence will convince them, they set an impossibly high bar.

[sickles]

There are patterns found within nature. Such as the fibonache numbers, pie, and plancks constant. That these things have been observed is good, but they do not explain why these are patterns. I dont believe in a creationist god, but i believe that there were processes at work that are not explained by science, though i hold faith that someday science will light the way. This i hold in difference with most thiestic creationists, but its also not as fun to debate against

[LiamOS]

There are patterns found within nature. Such as the fibonache numbers, pie, and plancks constant. That these things have been observed is good, but they do not explain why these are patterns. I dont believe in a creationist god, but i believe that there were processes at work that are not explained by science, though i hold faith that someday science will light the way. This i hold in difference with most thiestic creationists, but its also not as fun to debate against

The Fiobonnaci sequence in nature is rare enough to be ignored as statistically likely IMO, Pi isn't really anywhere in nature, it's just a ratio. Also, Planck's constant is also merely a ratio.
As for explaining the patterns, that's a tricky one. Sting Theory and M Theory would do the job, but they can't be proven so let's ignore those; I believe if we get unambiguous results from the LHC, we may have a chance at piecing together why pi and e are the way they are.

[sickles]

There are patterns found within nature. Such as the fibonache numbers, pie, and plancks constant. That these things have been observed is good, but they do not explain why these are patterns. I dont believe in a creationist god, but i believe that there were processes at work that are not explained by science, though i hold faith that someday science will light the way. This i hold in difference with most thiestic creationists, but its also not as fun to debate against

The Fiobonnaci sequence in nature is rare enough to be ignored as statistically likely IMO, Pi isn't really anywhere in nature, it's just a ratio. Also, Planck's constant is also merely a ratio.
As for explaining the patterns, that's a tricky one. Sting Theory and M Theory would do the job, but they can't be proven so let's ignore those; I believe if we get unambiguous results from the LHC, we may have a chance at piecing together why pi and e are the way they are.

true, they are just ratio's, but they ALWAYS hold true. Asquared +bsquared always = Csquared, always. But why is this so? It seems to indicate laws of nature that we are not able to concieve of, as yet. Couldnt the pattern of life also have sprung from a law that is always so, meaning, if you have the ingredients, it always happens?

String thoery would reduce material objects to emergent patterns, which i am fine with. But these are still patterns. Doesnt this mean that matter tends to head towards complexity?

[LiamOS]

true, they are just ratio's, but they ALWAYS hold true. Asquared +bsquared always = Csquared, always. But why is this so? It seems to indicate laws of nature that we are not able to concieve of, as yet.

The most important thing is knowing the law and its limitations; it may well be that there is no 'reason' for the laws.

Doesnt this mean that matter tends to head towards complexity?

Second law of Thermodynamics in a nutshell.

Edit: It should be noted that this isn't actually the Second Law, but it's a result of it, given that complexity is usually proportional to entropy.

[sickles]

true, they are just ratio's, but they ALWAYS hold true. Asquared +bsquared always = Csquared, always. But why is this so? It seems to indicate laws of nature that we are not able to concieve of, as yet.

The most important thing is knowing the law and its limitations; it may well be that there is no 'reason' for the laws.

Doesnt this mean that matter tends to head towards complexity?

Second law of Thermodynamics in a nutshell.

Edit: It should be noted that this isn't actually the Second Law, but it's a result of it, given that complexity is usually proportional to entropy.

yes, but we both know that only applies to an enclosed system. The universe is that system, so locally, complexity can persist and entropy subside.

And a law being without cause defies logic. A simple "I dont know " suffices, but to say that it may be that without cause defies logic. Who says the most important thing is knowing the law and its limitations? isnt knowing the cause of the law also important? Im not suggesting something conscious being the cause, im saying there has to be a cause that we cannot percieve.

[LiamOS]

And a law being without cause defies logic.

Something must have no cause, and I'd say that it's illogical to assume that it's definitely not our natural laws.

to say that it may be that without cause defies logic.

Something must be without a cause, so again I'd go as far as to say that simply assuming that it's not anything you can't show a cause for is illogical.

Who says the most important thing is knowing the law and its limitations?

Well, I meant that knowing why adds little value to general science. Although it would have tremendous philosophical value, I find it foolhardy to simply assume that the basic aspects of the universe and the universe itself are even able to satisfy a question of 'why?'.

im saying there has to be a cause that we cannot percieve.

Why do you say that? Is this assertion based on philosophy or physics?

[sickles]

And a law being without cause defies logic.

Something must have no cause, and I'd say that it's illogical to assume that it's definitely not our natural laws.

to say that it may be that without cause defies logic.

Something must be without a cause, so again I'd go as far as to say that simply assuming that it's not anything you can't show a cause for is illogical.

Who says the most important thing is knowing the law and its limitations?

Well, I meant that knowing why adds little value to general science. Although it would have tremendous philosophical value, I find it foolhardy to simply assume that the basic aspects of the universe and the universe itself are even able to satisfy a question of 'why?'.

im saying there has to be a cause that we cannot percieve.

Why do you say that? Is this assertion based on philosophy or physics?

Its based on inductive reasoning.

Everything must have a cause, however insignificant you may judge that cause to be. For instance, what is the cause of emergent phenomenon? You may believe that knowing this may add little to the collective knowledge of science, but you will probably be proved wrong one day.

Why does an electron jump from one orbit of an atom to another without passing through the space in between? you would seem to say that it doesnt matter, as long as we can predict the behaviour. I would say that finding out the cause leads to even more valuable knowledge such as wormholes, existance of other dimension, or super symmetry. The very tenants of string and M theory rest upon finding the cause of such phenomenon. How can this knowledge be worth very little?

I am saying there must be a cause we cannot percieve because everything has a cause, and we are unable to percieve it, as yet. simple as that. Its based upon logic, not religious belief.

[Goat]

Its based on inductive reasoning.

Everything must have a cause, however insignificant you may judge that cause to be. For instance, what is the cause of emergent phenomenon? You may believe that knowing this may add little to the collective knowledge of science, but you will probably be proved wrong one day.

Why does an electron jump from one orbit of an atom to another without passing through the space in between? you would seem to say that it doesnt matter, as long as we can predict the behaviour. I would say that finding out the cause leads to even more valuable knowledge such as wormholes, existance of other dimension, or super symmetry. The very tenants of string and M theory rest upon finding the cause of such phenomenon. How can this knowledge be worth very little?

I am saying there must be a cause we cannot percieve because everything has a cause, and we are unable to percieve it, as yet. simple as that. Its based upon logic, not religious belief.

A lot of the effects in the quantum world do not make intuitive sense to us. It is counter intuitive as a matter of fact.