Richard Dawkins: The cost of "Expelled"

The letter to which Dawkins responded was purportedly sent by a Jew whose relatives were killed in the Holocaust. To my mind that letter more likely was from somebody pretending to be a Jew but in fact intending to whip up anti-Semitic emotions. Indeed, anybody familiar with how Jews behave, will realize that a Jew would not ever evince such a threat to expel Shermer from the country. Jews have no such power as to expel anybody, and have anyway no desire to do so even if they were able to do it. I think that by responding to the letter Dawkins fell for a bait of a provocateur.

The Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution is dedicated to publishing high quality original research and review papers that advance our knowledge and understanding of the function, diversity, abundance, distribution, and evolution of organisms at all levels of biological organization as they interact with their biotic and abiotic environments. (Click to read our mission statement.) Editors-in-Chief Blaustein, Leon University of Haifa, Israel Kotler, Burt P. Ben-Gurion University, Israel

I agree with "ag". The letter could be authentic, but the impression I could not dispel in reading it was the same - that someone was faking it either as a poor joke, or as an attempt to stir things up or maybe to try to make Shermer look like a fool.

The style is "troll", much simply does not ring true.

However unlike when Dawkins was duped into appearing in expelled, this time his efforts have produced an excellent resource for those being taken in by the claim that atheism -> Nazism.

I see several possibilities here. (1) Anyone who falls for Stein's propaganda is a drooling idiot; (2) Ignorant people unequipped with the minimal knowledge necessary to recognize Stein's propaganda for what is is is turned into a drooling idiot by watching the movie; (3) Someone is pretending to be one of the above drooling idiots to give Dawkins and/or Shermer an opportunity to shine a bright light on Stein's target audience and look sane by contrast.

Sadly, I think it's clear that Stein made the conscious decision not just to fill a movie with falsehoods and misrepresentations, but to carefully select those most calculated to make the sort of emotional appeals that override the intellect and lay it waste effortlessly. This letter articulates exactly the gut reaction Stein's imagery was aiming for.

Dawkins is entirely correct, this movie is evil whether or not the letter is sincere.

Some of these poor souls are going to come into our forums foaming and ranting and get clobbered with reality, and a few of them are going to get really angry when they realize they've been played for fools. I'm glad that Dawkins extended such a kind welcome to them.

Dana Hunter: I'm glad that Dawkins extended such a kind welcome to them.

Firstly, please do not assume that "the Jews" are any more a bloc of like thinking people than are "the Catholics". I've learned with guys who think dinosaurs are figments of the imagination, and there is the Michael Korn/Ben Stein/David Berlinski faction as well of griefers and cranks.

Sure, this person could be Jewish. If his great-grandparents were killed 65 years ago, he might be a relatively young adult. Be that as it may, the opinions expressed are well within the range of fringe groups such as the old JDL of Meir Kahane.

The vast majority of Jews who know their history, know that we are eventually on the wrong end of the verb "expel", and fight to keep it out of public discourse. This is a sad exception.

This email, and Dawkin's response, does remind me that we need to make every effort to maintain our cool and attempt to be calm, reasoned, patient, and understanding in our dealings with people influenced by Expelled. For if, in our frustration, we lash out with sarcasm and/or insults and put downs of our own (no matter how deserved,) they will feel justified in their misconceptions and merely say "See, Expelled was right."

The trouble is that one cannot tell the difference between a story made up to parody creationists and the real thing. A year or two ago I made one up and posted it to the ASA listserve and several fell for it.

Anyway Dawkins should be banned from discussion groups for having the bad taste to say the Expelled crowd are guilty of falsehoods:):):):):):)

Michael

www.menorahreview.org: Anti-Semitism, The Holocaust and Christianity Robert Michael The Holocaust seems inexplicable. Scholars, especially, understand the inadequacy of historical explanation. And yet, just as historians try to explain the decline and fall of Rome and the causes of the First World War, they struggle to understand why the Holocaust happened. Christianity’s precise influence on the Holocaust is impossible to determine and the Christian churches did not themselves perpetrate the Final Solution. But as a historian, I believe that Christian anti-Semitism is not only the source but also the major ideological basis of Nazi anti-Semitism. This conclusion appears impossible. The churches’ moral principles, so antithetical to the genocidal morality of Nazi Germany, should preclude any connection between Christian precepts and the Final Solution. Some Nazis explicitly ridiculed Christian ideals, though many more attacked the Christian churches but not Christianity itself. Moreover, a small minority of Christians helped the Jews during the Holocaust and a few thousand of them risked their lives to help Jews just as, for two millennia, some Christians had always treated Jews decently. This latter group consisted mostly of authentic Christians acting on Jesus’ moral teachings, although some may have had more pragmatic, and less ethical, reasons. continues

DNFTT

Yes, let's be calm and rational for appearance sake, while we continue to enforce orthodoxy (if I can use the term safely). After all, we have all the power, why break a big sweat about some B flick?

Larry: Dawkins said it was "... a wicked and evil thing..." What makes it wicked and evil? Does he subscribe to some moral code? I thought we were just highly evolved animals.

Larry said: Dawkins said it was “… a wicked and evil thing…” What makes it wicked and evil? Does he subscribe to some moral code? I thought we were just highly evolved animals.

AL:

Larry said: Dawkins said it was “… a wicked and evil thing…” What makes it wicked and evil? Does he subscribe to some moral code? I thought we were just highly evolved animals.

Yes, he obviously does have a moral code. I'm sorry, but does this clash with somebody's magical thinking that being an animal precludes socialized and conformed behavior?

Troll alert.... Larry is at it again. Now Larry please vanish from sight.

Bob Bobberton: If any one else has a better defence of atheist ethics please feel free...

BB says "Without God we can appeal to the golden rule and ethics (That is: we should all behave in a way to promote social good.) to define a moral code. Alternatively, one can assert that our animal nature innately gives us a moral code which has evolved over time and we ‘should’ implement it because it also promotes social behavior and individual happiness."

So, according to the atheist, adopting and following a moral code is either a choice or it is programmed into the human psyche, or a combination of both. Either way, it is not really "true" in the sense that there is no transcendent being that cares about the moral code, adherence to it, or subjects accountability or awards/penalties for compliance.

Now, don't atheists criticize spiritual people on these same grounds? According to them, spiritual people either choose or are programmed to believe something that isn't really true, and conduct themselves accordingly.

Following this logic, atheists cannot objectively prefer atheism with a moral code over spiritual beliefs, which invariably also impose a moral code. Of course, the atheist will now say that he or she is free to choose their moral code, while the drones in religion are not, so their code is preferable. There is one big problem with this logic, however. I would ask any of the atheists reading this to state whether they feel their moral code is superior to that of Jesus Christ, or Siddhartha Gautama, or Lao Tsu?

I'll say this: mine is far superior to that outlined and exemplified in the Old Testament. And so is yours.

And that's all I got to say about that (apologies to Forrest).

Either way, it is not really “true” in the sense that there is no transcendent being that cares about the moral code, adherence to it, or subjects accountability or awards/penalties for compliance.

Now, don’t atheists criticize spiritual people on these same grounds? According to them, spiritual people either choose or are programmed to believe something that isn’t really true, and conduct themselves accordingly.

A few people don't have much of a visible moral code or don't follow one anyway.

Look at what Ben Stein, Mathis, Ruloff, Miller, and crew did with Expelled for an example

Paraphrasing Gandhi, "It would be great if Xians followed the 10 commandments. When are they going to start?"

Ekstasis: BB says "Without God we can appeal to the golden rule and ethics (That is: we should all behave in a way to promote social good.) to define a moral code. Alternatively, one can assert that our animal nature innately gives us a moral code which has evolved over time and we ‘should’ implement it because it also promotes social behavior and individual happiness." So, according to the atheist, adopting and following a moral code is either a choice or it is programmed into the human psyche, or a combination of both. Either way, it is not really "true" in the sense that there is no transcendent being that cares about the moral code, adherence to it, or subjects accountability or awards/penalties for compliance. Now, don't atheists criticize spiritual people on these same grounds? According to them, spiritual people either choose or are programmed to believe something that isn't really true, and conduct themselves accordingly. Following this logic, atheists cannot objectively prefer atheism with a moral code over spiritual beliefs, which invariably also impose a moral code. Of course, the atheist will now say that he or she is free to choose their moral code, while the drones in religion are not, so their code is preferable. There is one big problem with this logic, however. I would ask any of the atheists reading this to state whether they feel their moral code is superior to that of Jesus Christ, or Siddhartha Gautama, or Lao Tsu?

The question I would like to ask those who base their ethics on what their God tells them is how they know that the God is good. If their God isn't good, then what he tells them to do will also be not good. But how would they know? They can't bootstrap God's goodness into existence. In the end, they are relying on a moral sense which does not come from God, in order to judge whether what God says, and whether God himself is good. Seems to me like they've got bigger problems than atheists.

But what would I know, I'm a polytheist.

Speaking of cost, the lying liars of 'Expelled' might just lose even more:

Yoko sues "Expelled" filmmakers over 'Imagine.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2320158220080423

Ekstasis, I happen to be an atheist and a Buddhist. The Buddha never argued for a god and morality is not a big issue in Buddhism because reality is presumed to have many ways to warn you about the consequences of bad behavior. Open your eyes. Everyone chooses. Some people just don't want to take personal responsibility for their choices. Too bad, you have to anyway.

Ekstasus said: So, according to the atheist, adopting and following a moral code is either a choice or it is programmed into the human psyche, or a combination of both.

Either way, it is not really “true” in the sense that there is no transcendent being that cares about the moral code, adherence to it, or subjects accountability or awards/penalties for compliance.

Now, don’t atheists criticize spiritual people on these same grounds?

Following this logic, atheists cannot objectively prefer atheism with a moral code over spiritual beliefs, which invariably also impose a moral code.

I would ask any of the atheists reading this to state whether they feel their moral code is superior to that of Jesus Christ, or Siddhartha Gautama, or Lao Tsu?

Darn it, why can't I ignore this thread?!? *shrug*

First, I think people need to stop worrying about where morality comes from.

Morality is real:

Analogy loosely borrowed from Descartes. Where does out awareness come from, and how can we trust it? To which I respond, it is futile to doubt your awareness, so don't bother. I see a dinosaur coffee mug here, and no one is going to convince me I am deluded. Now you can convince me that what I am seeing is a reflection, but I still see something that looks like a dinosaur coffee mug.

Similarly, I have morals. I am willing to modify them, since my personal morality demands it, but it is useless to try to convince me that my morals are epistemologically unsound, because they are not based on epistemology. So the existence of God is not required for me to possess morals, though, in theory, the denial of the existence of God may be immoral, or the perceptions of my morality my rationally point to a God, but this is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Fin.

Now I'm going to get preachy, and everyone who cares about logic should stop reading here. (Furthermore, this is a total tangent)

A rational atheists must acknowledge that without people (or living beings if we want to be more precise) there are no morals, since to an atheist people are ultimately the source of morality. This does seem to mean that if every one thought it was alright to murder babies and eat them, then that would be OK. This might seem odd, but I think it is rationally inescapable, and in fact just as the universe ought to be. This gives each and every person the power to create an ethical code, and you have that power. Think of "A Clockwork Orange." Demanding that God gives your ethics ultimately defaults on your duties as a human being. Being moral without developing that morality is meaningless, and you don't understand morality if you need God to give it to you. If God doesn't exist, there there will be no test at the end, but we should still do everything exactly the same anyway, because we still have the same morals, and those morals are our own. It is like the difference between answering a question correctly, and understanding your own answer. I don't really know how to drive this home, just read "The Flys" by Sartre. *shrug*

A rational atheists must acknowledge that without people (or living beings if we want to be more precise) there are no morals, since to an atheist people are ultimately the source of morality. This does seem to mean that if every one thought it was alright to murder babies and eat them, then that would be OK. This might seem odd, but I think it is rationally inescapable, and in fact just as the universe ought to be. This gives each and every person the power to create an ethical code, and you have that power.

Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans

FL doesn't even know he's quote-mining...

FL, you didn't read the top of the page. Scroll up and read the top of the page. Dawkins explained that Hitler's crimes were the fruit of European anti-semitism cultivated by the Christian churches. Human breeding was modeled after animal breeding. Are you going to blame Darwin for animal breeding? Your comment about what is bearing fruit is very ironic when it comes to conservative Xian religion. Open mouth, insert foot, Huh, FL?

Thanks for the confession, Mr. Dawkins. Just another link in the chain that clearly links evolution to the eugenics game. FL :)

The letter could be authentic, but the impression I could not dispel in reading it was the same - that someone was faking it either as a poor joke, or as an attempt to stir things up or maybe to try to make Shermer look like a fool.

Unfortunately, "Darwinism" phrases is creeping into the historian lexicon in describing the Third Reich. Usually it means Spencer's "Social Darwinism," popular in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. As noted from the paragraph where this came:

"In his exhaustive biography of Hitler, scholar Ian Kershaw has recently introduced a concept called 'working toward the Fuhrer.' Hitler rarely had to issue specific decrees for the regime's most radical policies. His subordinates did it for him, and the competition at all levels of the regime was ferocious: 'In the Darwinist jungle of the Third Reich, the way to power and advancement was through anticipating the "Fuhrer will," and, without waiting for directives, taking initiatives to promote what were presumed to be Hitler's aims and wishes.'"
(Robert M. Gitino: "The German Way of War" pages 277-278)

But I suspect someone out there would misconstrue the above as meaning something else.

My bad: it "Robert M. Citino."

FL: Hitler's little hobby? Just one more piece of fruit, fresh from the evolution tree!! FL :)

Bill Gascoyne: FL doesn't even know he's quote-mining...

Darn it, why can’t I ignore this thread?!? *shrug*

Because resistance is futile?

Charles Poston says: "Ekstasis, I happen to be an atheist and a Buddhist. The Buddha never argued for a god and morality is not a big issue in Buddhism because reality is presumed to have many ways to warn you about the consequences of bad behavior. Open your eyes. Everyone chooses."

Thank you for the admonition, I strive for open eyes, open ears, open mind, and more importantly, open heart and soul. And I do agree that everyone chooses.

Siddhartha Gautama, shortly before enlightenment, felt incredible compassion for all living things. This is the very essence of morality, is it not? Morality is a very big issue! Jesus, hanging on the cross, asked God (the Lord said to my Lord) to forgive his murderers, for they did not know what they were doing. Compassion on display.

Would I choose and pursue compassion without these awesome examples? We learn best by modeling and emulation. I would rather be a midget standing on the shoulders of giants than a normal person standing on the ground.

To those who dismiss morality and spiritual realities with a wave of the hand, I ask you one question. How much time and energy do you spend trying to be right and justify yourself? Be honest. We all do it. There is a sense of accountability and measurement of our moral performance that is simply inescapable. The more you run from the concept the more you are enslaved. I for one will choose freedom through redemption.

FL:

Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans

Thanks for the confession, Mr. Dawkins. Just another link in the chain that clearly links evolution to the eugenics game. FL :)

FL: One can figure out the nature of the tree by noticing what fruit it bears. FL :)

I wish somebody with better command of the English language than me and with a proper historical understanding could write a proper essay with the subject: “Why the Hitler-Holocaust connection is a big lie.”

What I can say is only that AFAIK, the dog was domesticated as early as 14.000 years ago, and domestication of various animals as well as cultivation of plants had their beginnings thousands of years in the past. Husbandry and selective breeding thus have a long history, providing all the required knowledge and impetus for racism and eugenics. As far as I know, there also exist an ancient tradition of leaving children with defects out in the woods to make them ‘disappear’.

It seems reasonable to think that in prehistoric times that would have been a regular practice. The reasons are obvious.

We also know that warfare and fighting over territories, capture of slaves et cetera have been with the human race for as long as we are able to trace our history.

So why would Hitler need Darwin’s theory? He had it all served on a platter. Germany was down on its’ knees, humiliated by the Versailles tract. With a rich tradition of Prussian militarism and a strong desire for revenge, Hitler saw that in order to unite the people and get his business rolling, he needed an enemy. The Jews were the obvious candidate. I believe this can be found in history books. Anti-Semitism is an old tradition in Europe.

Another of Hitler’s pet subjects was the need for Lebensraum; living space for the Germans, the Aryan race. For the Aryan race to live up to his dreams of a Herrenvolk ruling the world, eugenics was one of the methods he sanctioned. ‘Idiots’ and people with mental or physical ‘defects’ were sterilized or otherwise ‘neutralized’. His Wehrmacht had instructions to make babies with Aryan women, i.e. preferably the blond, Nordic types. A special program, ‘Lebensborn’ was created – the legacy of the German occupants of Norway were registered with that program.

A logical next step in the development of the concept of a superior race, a Herrenvolk, was to realize that the ‘lower races’, (Untermensch) like the slavs were natural candidates as slaves for the ruling race.

Hitlers dram was for a glorious Gross-Deutschland – with a pure bred race of Aryans ruling the world.

It all adds up to the conclusion that everything already was in place for the Nazis: ideas, practices, scapegoats, goals – it was all there, and Hitler had the will and capacity to make it come true. The world may only be thankful he was a poor warlord. Had he listened to his very competent generals, instead of the Apollo program we would have had the Wotan program, and the Swastika flying over the White House today…

To what extent, if any, Darwin was employed as an argument by the Nazis therefore is entirely without any consequences. Darwin or not, in any case Hitler and the Nazis had what they needed. And they would not have let anything stand in their way. Much as the creationists are doing today – they just don’t care what the facts are or may be – they just fight with all means available to them. Truthfulness justice, fairness, right or wrong - it doesn't mater. Their purpose is holy, just as Hitler’s purpose was holy too; the Nordic gods were on his side…

I remember a film clip from one of his speeches; he had made a big decision, and told the people that in that instant, he embodied the German people, at that moment he literally was Germany itself making that decision. That was his plight, his duty, his purpose.

Are you aware to what extent the Nazis celebrated the gods, culture and folklore of the ancient German tribes?
...........

I hope this is not too far off topic - I won't mind if it is being moved somewhere else.

Rolf: A logical next step in the development of the concept of a superior race, a Herrenvolk, was to realize that the ‘lower races’, (Untermensch) like the slavs were natural candidates as slaves for the ruling race.

Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

harold: There is no such thing as "artificial" selection. Domestic animals and plants have a symbiotic or special prey relationship to another species, human beings. Selection which results from a relationship between two species is still natural selection. I suppose I say this a lot, but it really is very unscientific to use the term "artificial selection". Yes, everybody but me seems to use it, but it really is. There is nothing supernatural or magical about the selection that results from human breeding activities. It is still a type of natural selection. Other species beside humans use flexible behavior and insightful learning ("intelligence") to interact with their surroundings. To use the same hypothetical example I have used before, if foxes use their intelligence to exploit a prey species, and as a result, put selective pressure on individual members of the species, no-one says it was "artificial selection" because fox intelligence was involved.

Ekstasis said: To those who dismiss morality and spiritual realities with a wave of the hand, I ask you one question. How much time and energy do you spend trying to be right and justify yourself? Be honest. We all do it. There is a sense of accountability and measurement of our moral performance that is simply inescapable. The more you run from the concept the more you are enslaved. I for one will choose freedom through redemption.

The foxes are not deliberately exerting a selective pressure to their own advantage. If they are selectively taking the prey that is easier to kill, it is likely that in the next generation there will be fewer of the easier prey in the population.

Humans exploited this knowledge to deliberately breed in traits that they regarded as “better”. The distinction between “natural” and “artificial” is the concious choice of what is “better”;

it can be clearly seen in some of the well-known problems in dog breeds (eg hip dysplasia, ingrowing eyelashes, ….) which are due to selecting on desired characteristics without also deselecting undesirable ones. “Unthinking” natural selection would tend to be “more inclusive” (but would still not necessarily get it right!)

To those who dismiss morality and spiritual realities with a wave of the hand, I ask you one question. How much time and energy do you spend trying to be right and justify yourself? Be honest. We all do it. There is a sense of accountability and measurement of our moral performance that is simply inescapable. The more you run from the concept the more you are enslaved. I for one will choose freedom through redemption.

What happens in what you call “artificial” selection is that some individuals have a relatively greater rate of reproduction than others, largely because of the way their phenotype interacts with the environment. Because of this, there is a change in frequency in alleles in the population. It’s the SAME THING as any other type of natural selection. The fact that the main environmental factor was a human does not change this in the slightest.

Here's my two cents: the distinction between artificial selection and (non-artificial) natural selection seems to be just whether or not the selection is deliberate on the part of something or somebody other than the affected species.

Henry

harold: There is no such thing as "artificial" selection. . . . . There is nothing supernatural or magical about the selection that results from human breeding activities. It is still a type of natural selection.

Whoops! Disregard the previous comment. You already stated that you think it is the case. I think you should have a more laid back approach and say there is a caveat to the usage of the term artificial selection: that it is a form of natural selection.

I agree with Bob Boberton about the difference between artificial and natural. Maybe to put it another way, artificial simply means what human do or create. Our species is naturally likely to be concerned with that distinction, not caring as much what members of other species do.

Bob Bobertson -

Well, yes, I did say it, but I also agree with the gist of your comment (and the same point made by Henry J).

It's imprecise of me to say that there is "no such thing as artificial selection". Of course there is, by the standard, if often forgotten, definition of "artificial". The word doesn't necessarily mean "magic" or "supernatural", quite the contrary, it refers to the products of human (or other) artiface.

However, creationists do use that term to falsely imply a difference between the mechanisms of breeding domestic species and the mechanisms by which phenotypic traits are selected for in any other circumstance. That's a false dichotomy. Therefore, I do prefer terms like "breeding" or "human-selected".

I guess the key point is that what is sometimes called "artificial selection" is still a TYPE of natural selection, not a magically different thing.

As Flint mentioned above, from the perspective of the chickens or potatoes or bacteria, it's obviously simply natural selection.

I think antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria make this very clear. The "natural" ones are the result of human artiface. If we didn't build hospitals and make antibiotics, they wouldn't exist, at least not to a large extent. But we didn't do that on purpose. Now, to create models of the original ones for lab study, we use selective pressure on purpose in controlled settings, to breed bacteria with certain types of resistance. Does the fact that we do it on purpose in the latter case really make it that different? And if there are bacteria with resistance to some sort of natural antibiotic that is present in their environment (remember, most major antibiotics, other than sulfa drugs, are based on products of fungi or other bacteria themselves), in a way that humans had nothing to do with, is that so different?

But Frank B, other species also engage in 'artificial' selection: ants, for example, breed aphids. Lions preferentially select 'slow' gazelles. There is only 'selection', which is a complex mish-mosh of factors based on what's in the environment.

But those lions aren't intending to breed faster gazelles; they're just intending to have dinner (or whatever meal it is). The effect on the gazelle gene pool is an accident (one that the lions probably would not want if they understood it), not an artifice.

Henry

"Intent" is not scientific. "Artificial selection" is just "natural selection done by humans".

Science Avenger: "Intent" is not scientific. "Artificial selection" is just "natural selection done by humans".

So two people perform the exact same action with the exact same consequences and one is called "articificial" and one not, based on intent? Silly word-games indeed.

Forgive the snark Kevin. What I see you telling me is if Bob kills all his white lambs because he wishes to have a heard of black sheep, that's artificial selection, but if John kills all his white lambs because his ex-wife loved white lambs and he hates them, that's not? Yet we still get a heard of black sheep in remarkable time relative to natural forces.

I say that's silly. What makes artificial selection worthy of its own term is the focused, frequent selecting that produces results rare, at best, in the natural (non-artificial) world. What possible ultimate significance is there in the motives of the actors?

Science Avenger: Forgive the snark Kevin. What I see you telling me is if Bob kills all his white lambs because he wishes to have a heard of black sheep, that's artificial selection, but if John kills all his white lambs because his ex-wife loved white lambs and he hates them, that's not? Yet we still get a heard of black sheep in remarkable time relative to natural forces. I say that's silly. What makes artificial selection worthy of its own term is the focused, frequent selecting that produces results rare, at best, in the natural (non-artificial) world. What possible ultimate significance is there in the motives of the actors?

Killing white lambs to make room for black lambs on account of aesthetic or emotional reasons are examples of artificial selection. White lambs dying because they are more visible to visually oriented predators, or due to a lethal mutant gene linked to white fur genes that causes the lambs to die 10 days after birth would be examples of natural selection.

Hey fellas, can anyone answer me this? How many original life forms are there? Most think just one. Why, with literally every cubic centimeter within our reach filled with organic matter, would there only be one? If more than one, when did the last one originate? This morning? Yesterday? Last year? Surely if it happened once against all odds, it must happen much more with far greater odds.

Dave said: Hey fellas, can anyone answer me this? How many original life forms are there? Most think just one. Why, with literally every cubic centimeter within our reach filled with organic matter, would there only be one? If more than one, when did the last one originate? This morning? Yesterday? Last year? Surely if it happened once against all odds, it must happen much more with far greater odds.

By "original life form" I mean a first generation of life; a life form that has no organic ancestor.

Dave said: By "original life form" I mean a first generation of life; a life form that has no organic ancestor.

PvM said: What's the purpose of your question?

Dave said: By "original life form" I mean a first generation of life; a life form that has no organic ancestor.

Our point is that artificial selection is a subset of natural selection.

Dave said: By "original life form" I mean a first generation of life; a life form that has no organic ancestor.

I’ve never heard anyone claim more than one original life form, but I’ve often wondered why that is. It seems that Dawkins’ paradigm would have that it be likely there be multiple origins of life; it seems the scientific record doesn’t support this.

How about prions?

Absolutely fascinating. I am going to have to read some of the more recent abiogenesis work. Thank you, Mr. Larsson.

Surely if it [abiogenesis] happened once against all odds, it must happen much more with far greater odds.

IANAB, but personally I would prefer to say that it is a subset of (biological) selection, as much as it is a mechanism of (biological) evolution, albeit not a subset encountered in nature.

Hey fellas, can anyone answer me this? Why, with literally every cubic centimeter within our reach filled with organic matter, would there only be one? If more than one, when did the last one originate? This morning? Yesterday? Last year? Surely if it happened once against all odds, it must happen much more with far greater odds.

Dave -

Your question sounds innocuous enough, but I suspect that you're trying to spring some kind of "gotcha game". Anyway, here is a shorter answer.

1) All life today shares the same genetic code and fundamental biochemistry. Life evolves; this is inherent in the way that genetics work. If different types of life had been magically created out of nothing, we might expect differences in fundamental genetics and biochemistry.

2) We have no strong idea how life was originally created, and anyone who tells you that the theory of evolution has anything to do with that issue is lying. We do know that it had to happen several billions of years ago.

3) Some scientists study models of how life might have originated; this field is known as the study of "abiogenesis". It has nothing to do with religion, unless you personally follow a religion which will be proven false if science finds a model for how life may have arisen on earth. If you do, that's your own problem, not science's problem. Most religious people have no trouble with science.

4) Whether life originated once, or originated multiple times but only took hold once, is simply not known. It may never be known. This is all very fascinating, but for now, we can only build models of what may have happened in the distant past.

harold said: However, if someone uses the terms "natural" and "artificial" selection, I must be insistent that they should concede that the latter is essentially a type of the former.

Tell you what, it's refreshing to have somebody post an honest intelligent question on abiogenesis. Good on ya Dave.