That is Zoological, Captain.

[fu_manchu12]

I found myself attending a lecture by Richard Dawkins today, having steadfastly missed all opportunities to do so while actually, you know, attending his university. He was very well attended, in defiance of all fire safety regulations (a fact which the Warden of Imperial cheerfully acknowledged), with people in the aisles, up against the walls,

Comments

[dyddgu]

Bah. Dawkins nicked his stuff from knirirr's supervisor, Hamilton.

I'd have a lot more time for Dawkins if he were ever actually polite on the radio, instead of damning all people with faith as morons, as I agree with a lot of his arguments.

You could try reading The Extended Phenotype - he's been rewriting that book all of his career, though I forget what the most accessible version of it is. K will tell you, no doubt.

[fu_manchu12]

I was rather expecting an anti-religious rant. To be honest, that's part of why I went. As it was, the talk itself contained precisely one reference to religion at all, and the questions generated a further two - he was quite restrained.

Which was disappointing in that it didn't leave much to talk about afterwards - "What did you think about his views on phenotypes in evolutionary theory?" being a much less popular conversation starter than "So, all religion is evil and has in fact been spawned by the very emanations of Satan (if he existed, which he doesn't)! Comments?"

[knirirr]

The Selfish Gene is the book to read - all the way through. Many people claim to have read it but seem not to have read or understood the last chapter, as they reveal when they accuse him of genetic determinism (apparently an evil sin).
Dawkins does indeed explain the complicated mathematics of Hamilton in English. I used many of Dawkins' ideas in my thesis, but applied to things he probably would have thought boring.
I did attend an theists vs. atheists lecture with Dawkins at it. He trounced the theists, as did the other atheist (Atkinson), but the organisers wouldn't let me have a copy of the recording they made.

[dyddgu]

Well, you know that what I can't stand is the way he manages (often in so many words) to say that if you are a theist, you are therefore a creationist-flat-earth-loony. I know of plenty of scientists who do science and go "wow! Isn't the creator fab and groovy for giving us quantum/evolution/outer space/whatever", and their theism doesn't make them worse scientists or less sensible people. And as we both know, debate = trouncing the opponent is rarely productive, polite, or interesting.

[antiarc]

What was the answer to the beetle query?

[fu_manchu12]

He apparently demonstrated the issue on TV at a Royal Society Christmas Lecture a few years ago. Basically, he got the two highly explosive chemicals and mixed them together, then ducked.

Nothing happened.

It turns out that they need a catalyst to react together, and depending on the amount of the catalyst added, the resulting reaction ranges from "gets slightly warm" to "blows the room up". The gradual increase in the amount of this catalyst is apparently explainable in evolutionary biology, where the existence of the two chemicals on their own wouldn't have been.