Sunday reading – Richard Dawkins reads some of his “fan mail”

This is a more recent version of Richard Dawkins reading some of his “fan mail.”

Don’t remember much of the first batch he read – but get the impression the language skills of fundamentalists has become even poorer in the intervening period.

Warning – explicit language.

via Love Letters to Richard Dawkins – YouTube.

Similar articles

13 responses to “Sunday reading – Richard Dawkins reads some of his “fan mail”

  1. Amusing

    Like

  2. I suspect many are written bt poes however…

    Like

  3. I wish he had read something from anyone needling him about epigenetics, which can annoy him. How we manage our food/environment can produce heritable results. Here is an interview from Simon Morton yesterday, with some relevance. http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20164630 and if Ken’s Dawkins reading raised a few eyebrows I think that may, too.

    Dawkins is frustrated by people using epigenetics to say Darwin is wrong.

    (Actually Darwin talked about “pangenesis,” which can also irk the Neo-Darwinists.)

    I am sure epigenetics is going to come up in tooth health. Does low fluoride have an epigenetic effect like low food intake?

    Like

  4. Soundhill, I know Richard gets pissed off with the idiots who use things like epigenetics, and anything else, to “prove” Darwin wrong. But that is simply a matter of misrepresentation of the scientific process and I am not aware of any specific hostility of his towards epigenetics. There is obviously scientific debate about the extent of its significance but I certainly have not seen anything from him dogmatically opposing it.

    If you have something. What about a link.

    It is silly to suggest he should have included anything serious in this particular video.

    >

    Like

  5. http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/642737-is-epigenetics-a-revolution-in-evolution

    So, yes, Dawkins gets irritated when people claim epigenetics shows Darwin is wrong. Because it doesn’t…

    Like

  6. Sounds remarkably like replies I get to my comments about fluoridation….

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  7. David Fierstien

    Sounds like you have to be a pretty bad-ass motherfucker to get into heaven.

    Like

  8. David Fierstien

    Sorry for that comment, what I meant to way was: Sounds like you have to be a pretty bad-ass motherfuckin’ homophobe to get into heaven.

    Like

  9. @Marco,

    Thanks for the ref and discussion. At least getting acknowledgement of feedback from RNA, though not admitting from protein.

    Chris Banks doesn’t think we have enough time on the school curriculum to deal with anything other than the one way direction. I feel that is a bit dogmatic.

    A population who have gone without food on a long ocean voyage and so have the thrifty gene switched and passed on to progeny then have other implications for natural selection as I see it. Diabetes when food in plenty arrives next generation or three.

    Thinking about fluoride. My mum was a tea drinker, but what about offspring of low fluoride intake mums? Do they get a methylated gene and what happens when they are then exposed to a higher dose?

    Like

  10. The article linked to by Marko was by Gerry Coyne, it was only hosted on Dawkin’s site.

    On http://www.whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com Coyne periodically posts similar excerpts of the hate mail that he too receives. Somehow, in print it comes across as more sinister than in Dawkin’s examples, Dawkin’s verbal delivery completely pwns those who write it.

    Like

  11. @Richard
    and in Comment 20 by helical4
    ” So, epigenetic marks could provide another level of hereditary information that would have some influence on phenotype and could extend the range of variation for evolution to act on. The effect of epigenetic marks and feed back from environmental signals could control alterative live cycles, but any changes in behavior or morphology in response to environmental cues would be subject to natural selection. There is no Lamarckianism at work here.”

    Or. could I put it: any changes in behavior or morphology in response to environmental cues would give natural selection something to work on.

    Like

  12. Richard Christie

    Soundhill, I’m not qualified nor interested in debating here the validity of comments written on other websites by unknown authors, or even with you. No offence, and my apologies for derailing your diversion,

    Like

  13. “Chris Banks doesn’t think we have enough time on the school curriculum to deal with anything other than the one way direction. I feel that is a bit dogmatic.”

    Soundhill, how dare you put words in my mouth?

    Are you so desperate for attention that you want to drag me into some fresh bout of insanity?

    Push off.

    If I want to get involved in a conversation involving you, I will do so of my own accord.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s