1veedo

I don't think what I see is blue filed entoptic phenomenon. I definitely see this in pitch black and for it to be red/white blood cells there has to be light. If I focus clearly enough on "it" I can see things moving -- like not just dots but poorly defined objects.

As it turns out evolution had been around sense 1700, and some of its ideas even earlier. Again, this is perfectly normal in science -- it happens all the time.

Alcohol? (serious) I wouldn't recommend it in your case, unless you're out with friends. Drinking alone at home because of a thunderstorm sounds like a very bad idea.

Yes, this is perfectly normal in science. As I indicated earlier Darwin didn't come up with evolution nor did he do "most" of the work in evolution/natural selection (we're talking about "work" done before 1870 here). He did however popularize it and help advance the science. Of course we want to give credit to everyone else. I'm not saying we should make a list of people (newton, einstein, etc) and give them all the credit. Nor am I suggesting we should credit Dawkins for instance completely with gene-centered evolution, I'm just saying he was an important contributer. He actually corrected earlier work where "gene" refereed literally to alleles, and Dawkins defined gene in a slightly different manner in the context of gene-centered evolution. I'll be it, some other scientist would have eventually figured it out, but it was Dawkins, and not someone else, who figured these things out. Regardless to the other topic of discussion (above), if you actually look at Dawkins work he does stand out from most other scientists. He didn't invent a entire field of science like say Einstein did but compared to your average research scientist, based purely on his work, Dawkins does stand out. Based purely on his work Galileo didn't have many original ideas. And none of his more ground breaking ideas were actually original. I'm not saying I don't like Galileo, I'm just pointing this out. Darwin and Galileo were not "original." You can actually read about where some of Darwin's ideas came from in his own book! He does however pass the second two, and so does Dawkins, actually. Dawkins would even pass for the first depending on what exactly you're talking about. Eg he fixed gene-centered evolution with his definition of gene and he did invent memes and some other stuff as well. He is a "great scientist" but I don't know about a Newton.

I mentioned this earlier. Darwin didn't come up with evolution, either. He even talks about this in his book On the Origin of Species. The orignial? No. Primarily responsible for their development and progress? Absolutely yes. This time you need to read up on your history. Agreed. And this is not what I'm arguing. I made it abundantly clear earlier, Gene-centered evolution definitely was revolutionary. It's been described as the second most important thing in evolution sense Darwin. And depending on what you appreciate many of the other things Dawkins has "synthesized" are just as interesting -- for instance his take on altruism. His computer experiments btw which were all original research provided needed data in evolutionary psychology. Dawkins in other words was a key player in our modern understanding of where human morality comes from, even if some of it was just synthesized (which is perfectly normal btw in science if you haven't noticed -- including many "great scientist" such as Darwin and even Newton if I remember correctly). I find the biological reasons for morality just as interesting as gene-centered evolution even though it's not nearly as important.

This was more of what I was going for. Most people agree Galileo for instance was a "great scientist" but in reality it was Bruno, not Galileo, that came up with all his ideas. Bruno in reality was "one of the greatest scientists of all time," and not Galileo. Galileo however won the battle against religious dogma (and the church), Bruno was burned for it and promptly forgotten. So who gets the title of "great scientist?" Galileo of course! (even though Bruno was way cooler) Richard Dawkins was originally famous because of his revolutionary work in biology. Most of evolutionary thought completely changed because of Dawkins so this is why he's a "great scientist" -- he's contributed a lot to science, or at least to biology, and this is partially because of his fame. He's famous today because of his stance on religion and irrationality. Not surprisingly because of this many "Christians" for instance will downplay his role in modern science, which, regardless of what he's doing today with things like The Enemies of Reason are up there in importance with many other scientists. He was a "great scientist" in other words before he started all this stuff with "atheism." I always thought Hawking and Brian Green were overrated. Sense I read The Selfish Gene I've liked Dawkins better so to speak than other contemporary "popular scientists", and this was before he published The God Delusion. Before the God deulsion actually it seemed like everyone liked Dawkins. I'd say him and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are probably two of my favorite scientists.

Being one of the world's greatest scientists of all time. Specifically his work in biology is what he's most famous for (eg The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype).

If there is a difference then sociology is definitely soft. Sometimes I wonder if a lot of sociology is really a science at all.

Dawkins didn't want the series to be called "the root of all evil." The produces picked the name and they couldn't get Dawkins to do the show for them until they changed the title to "The root of all evil?" (notice the question mark), and he didn't even like that title but still agreed to do the show. I think ParanoiA is right when he says Dawkins is careful when criticizing religion (post 51) and the proof of this is the fact that Dawkins doesn't even like the title of his own TV show. Religious people are just bunching up their panties because they feel threatened by Dawkins but in reality he's taking a very calm, objective, and I'd say thoughtful approach to the topics of God and other superstitions. The funny thing is that most religious people would agree with The Enemies of Reason if they didn't already know who Dawkins is.

The difference is that the British population isn't made up of a bunch of religious fundies. He's been voted like "britains top intellectual" for several years in a row now, usually receiving over twice the number of votes that second place gets. Over hear in America where people don't respect science and reason people likewise don't like Dawkins. In other words Dawkins fits in just fine over in Britain as a "public figure" simply because the british population respects reason, while the US population does not.

Uho this is the makings of another one of those bloody religious wars. Be careful who you taunt iNow.

He kind of invented the ideas of the selfish gene and extended phenotype. He wasn't the first to suggest gene-centered evolution but then again Darwin wasn't even the first to suggest evolution and natural selection. But he was definitely the one who revolutionized modern biology with these concepts. He's also done a lot of research behind altruism and why "people are nice to each other." This was all pre-1990. Sense then he's been a popular atheist trying to promote science and reason. He's done a lot more than just that and memes, but he's mostly known for his work on gene-centered evolution. Before him group selection and other forms of natural selection were favored over the gene-centered view. (btw dawkins describes "gene" in this context slightly differently than just a single allele. If you read The Selfish Gene he gives a formal definition) This is an example of the equivocation logical fallacy. You are confusing two similar, but separate concepts here. True science doesn't say anything about God but you can apply science to various claims of the paranormal and "natural claims" made by many religions (eg Noah built a boat and God flooded the planet). You can also take the position that sense God is inherently untestable there's no reason to believe in him, like ParanoiA is saying.

We're on scienceforums. Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists alive today. I would expect this kind of talk on a religious forum from people who hate science, not people who regular this board. Maybe all the trolls decided to come out and play. I never understood the reasoning of some people joining forums which they are completely against. IIDB for instance is a forum for "atheists and freethinkings" yet Christians and religious fundies commonly join the forum just to agitate atheists. This isn't a limited phenomenon either -- scientific-minded people for instance join the flatearther's forum all the time to debate them as well.

That's not really Dawkins. He's already revolutionized biology and I guess he spends less time in science anymore. But if you live in a place like West Virginian you can appreciate people like Dawkins or Michael Shermer for trying to combat this movement away from science and towards superstition. I think Richard Dawkins has a very deep understanding of the importance of science. When science goes out the window people start burning witches and avoiding black cats.

I'm saying autism exists on a scale, and that people in the general population can have small amounts of it. There's actually a debate as to whether or not a large percentage of people with Asperger's syndrome really have a disorder in the first place or if it just reflects a natural distribution in the gene pool (the debate is if we should tighten the criteria some). Likewise there are a lot of neurotypical people who resemble autistics but don't necessarily qualify for full-blown Aspergers. This is unrelated to Simon-Baron Cohen. It's known as the autistic spectrum. When applied to the Simon-Baron Cohen model it means that instead of existing on an "autistic scale" you exist on a sort of "how male is your brain" scale. Btw I've done some research sense about Simon-Baron Cohen and I would to a limited extent agree with you. More so than I would have a couple months ago. Autism can be explained on an EQ and SQ scale fairly well, and in autistic people you do see a much larger amount of androgen and testosterone, especially prenatally and before puberty, but this alone doesn't necessarily indicate a "male brain." Higher SQ and lower EQ does however seem to be characteristic of males, and even more so for autistics.

Natural CO2 emissions are absorbed by climate sinks. Climate sinks are basically negative feedback systems. Over half of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions are being absorbed by the same sinks. Btw bascule your graph only shows fossil fuel CO2 which doesn't represent net anthropogenic CO2 production.

I thought we were supposed to peak at 8 or 9 billion, somewhere around 2050 then start declining (because of decreased birth rates).

That is all true with LSD just because of the nature of LSD -- it depends more on the person than the actual drug. Side-effects of LSD have been known sense at least the 60s. The dosage was also much less then what's required for psychedelic effects. In reality though LSD was only tested or played around with and never used medically. Before the complete ban of LSD (in the US) it was classified as "schedule 1" meaning it had no legitimate medical use and the government considered it unsafe (lol thank you history channel -- has anyone seen their special on recreational drugs?). This is all irrelevant though because we're talking about two different things here. In one case you're taking large enough doses to trip and the other you're trying to cure a disease of some sort. It's like the difference between taking meth or desoxyn (medical meth); they're completely different even though it's the same drug. Furthermore many drugs prescribed for medical reasons do have harmful side-effects. And this is especially true for psychological drugs. Eg read this. A drug doesn't have to be "safe" or "side-effect free." The idea is to find a balance between negative effects of a drug and positive effects.

Wouldn't that make you age really fast?

Yes, I kind of posted it above on this page. "LSD flashbacks and ego functioning" This study reports a figure of 28%. There's another study I remember finding on google scholar showing a rate of 20% but makes excuses for itself, for example they say the data is based off people admitting to LSD use when seeking medical help for full-blown HPPD so the figure is probably higher. Another study done by Dr. Horowitze found that 7/22 (about 1/3) people who used LSD "repeatedly" (defined as 15 'trips' in their lifetime) reported flashbacks. Well this isn't what I'm talking about. I actually know a little bit about these drugs because I did some research of my own a few years ago. I watched a video about meth use in highschool and being my rebellious-student self I went home looking into some of the claims in this video so I could report to my friends "yeah, don't do meth but the video is full of shit." It turns out meth really is everything it's cracked up to be. It has a 99% addiction rate after only one use. The drug user doesn't realize it (he thinks he's not addicted) but there is serious research showing exactly how meth does this and sure enough after a month or so the same user goes back and tries it again. There's an interesting phenomenon which links a lot of drug side-effects together. Basically every drug in this group increases dopamine levels and after enough use people start developing side-effects similar to psychosis. Different drugs all have individual side-effects but a good chunk of side-effects are similar across all of them. I have met a number of 'hardcore' drug users before and it's not like they fall over and die or "think they're a carrot" like you're talking about. In this regard I would agree with you. But there are a lot of psychological problems associated with prolonged drug use. Some drugs are worse then others as well. MDMA for instance seems to mess up a lot of people while marijuana is viewed as being relatively harmless. I used to know a lot of drug users (in highschool) who would tell you point blank, don't do MDMA and a few others who said to avoid LSD.

I think freezing time could be very useful. Just think about all the things you could do! If you could freeze time there really could be more then 24 hours in a day.

Well in all technicality there are physical effects as well as mental/psychological effects. In psychology of course you learn that everthing psychological is simultaneously physical but if we distinguish here I'm talking about psychological effects. Physical effects can be fever, tremers, increased heart rate etc, but the psychological effects can be bad. It may not kill you, but we're talking roughly 1 in 4 people after taking LSD start experiencing psychotic episodes and flashbacks. Many people used to think that LSD would stay in your brain for over 20 years because of longterm effects that people experience from LSD. We know now of course that this isn't the case but it appears to have an immediate, long-term effect on a user's brain. Some people report that LSD actually changed their life permanently -- though this can be a positive change. If you're the other group of people then great, you probably wont have negative side-effetcs but you're still taking a fairly large risk by trying LSD. Physically it wont make your heart explode or anything but there IS evidence for psychological effects. IMO if you wanted to hallucinate with the help of drugs marijuana would be a much safer alternative.

If you take the full dosage then yes it can be physically and mentally bad for you. I actually know someone who used LSD once and now he keeps getting flashbacks, often disrupting things he's doing at the moment. I'm sure there are going to be many different effects depending on it's unique effects on an individual, and it's side-effects aren't going to necessarily stop someone from "going to work" but I don't think many people are going to agree with you that it's "harmless." I think the biggest long-term effect of LSD is flashbacks which seems to have a [official] 20% to 28% occurrence (depending on what study you look at, which btw probably underestimate the actual rates of occurrence because of the illegal nature of LSD use. These figures come from clinical reports of people admitting to LSD use when seeking medical help for full-blown HPPD. And they don't include "minor" flashbacks which don't classify officially as HPPD). So if you want a citation from a quick google scholar search, "LSD flashbacks and ego functioning" in Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Btw I don't see the problem with trusting the US government's data about drugs. Earlier in the thread either you or someone else said not to trust the government about drug use. But it's not like the government is one big "thing" -- there are different devisions. If you look at steroids for example they were baned for political reasons -- politicians got good report from the baseball scandals for being against steroid use. In competitive sports steroids probably should be banned but congress was under the impression that steroid use was also unhealthy. President Bush even backs up his position on this issue by saying frankly that steroids are "deadly." However, on actual government websites (NIDA, "From the case reports, the incidence of life-threatening effects appears to be low") it is clear that in healthy adult males steroid use is pretty much harmless, and this is what the actual scientific studies suggest. The only side-effect found from steroid use is a link with hairloss and increased cholesterol -- though not to life-threatening levels. Taken by women or men under 22 however steroid use can have lifelong consequences. If you don't want to trust what congress says I could see why but there are many devisions of the government with accurate, non-biased information, which oftentimes contradict the official government stance on different issues. Marijuana use would be another example this -- surprisingly official government reports about marijuana seem to support the pro-legalization side. Yeah you're really not supposed to hallucinate -- your brain has evolved, if anything, to not hallucinate. I've had hypnagogic hallucinations before and it really isn't all that fun.

Just a couple things that havn't already been mentioned: You can cut your wrists and "bleed." And you can also get bit by a rattle snake but you have to avoid medical attention for a few days. Going without sleep for more than three days is harmful for your brain.

Wow you're quite an accomplished 2 year old. Most people don't even start elementary school till they're 5 or 6.