Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Simurgh]

I have no idea why your are rejecting or evaluating arguments for God I have never made. I have said very little about God at all.

My argument has simply been that the issue of God's existance is worse off for Dawkin's input yet he is a competant biologist. It is not a complex claim.

No, it is not a complex claim, it was just burried under confused sounding verbiage. It still begs th question though, what makes you think that Dawkins is any less entitled to voice his opinion--base on his observations and research--than some bible banger who simply insists that god exists because he believes it to be true?

Dawkins, and others like him simply provide a scientific explanation for their assertions while those who argue against them use their [unprovable] beliefs based on some text.

If you think Dawkins is to be blamed that trying the issue of god's existence is worse off, then he did a pretty good job doing that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If I indicated that every use of the word and made everything they joined necessary or contingent that was a mistake. What I meant is that two sources if you want to be hyper literal are given as the source of rights. In this case X and the creator of X. In this case the existence of X is contingent on the creative act of Xs creator. IOW if the creator did not exist as a source then X could not exist necessarily. I do not agree with his claiming that nature justifies morality but it does not matter because in this case he also mandates that nature was created and its creator is "God" that results in a a contingent reality. If the creator did not exist the creation would not either.

Right. That is the theistic view. As always, the atheist and theist disagree on whether Nature was created by a God, or not. However, they both believe Nature exists in the first place and, by your own admission, the Declaration says Nature endows rights. So you must concede that I am correct, that atheists like Dawkins can (if they choose) justify their own right to free speech by following a line of argument similar to that of American revolutionaries.

As "ought" is well understood to imply a duty to an external standard...

Let's not argue semantics. I defined what I mean by "ought" and "moral". Either you can show that my conclusions do not reasonably follow from my definitions, or you cannot. I acknowledge that, using your definition, if "ought" refers to some justification transcending facts and reason, atheists can't justify ought statements (or naturalists, more precisely).

I did not say you "ought" to maximize human survival or happiness. Re-read my argument.

If you did not then your statement had little explanatory power.

It wasn't an explanation. As I said, it was an argument. (Just a sketch, really.)

Establishing what an individual values without a way to justify that anyone else "ought" to respect it does not give rights without God. I would admit that reason might be enough to govern morality and therefore rights (but not sufficient to found them) in a perfect world but in the one we have it is not sufficient. You may declare that maximizing survival is a right and everyone may agree and then you may act is if that was a right but it is based in opinion not reality. When Hitler declares using the same methods, that certain groups do no not have that right there is no argument within the context of your claims by which that may be refuted. There are many cases where what we refer to as the victims agree to their own destruction. Once again your system is insufficient for resolving these situations. I will say that even though I do not agree you are a competant debator on the issue.

Let me emphasize that I'm not trying to persuade you. I'm only challenging your assertion that atheists like Dawkins *cannot* justify their own rights. With that goal in mind, I only sketch the route by which they could. I acknowledge theists can also justify rights (although in my opinion, that route is less meaningful). So let me just make brief points in response to what you've said here:

(1) There are in fact ways to justify that everyone, not just myself, ought to want certain similar things, such as mutual happiness rather than the destruction of others (to the extent that we can choose what we want, of course; a psychopath with a malformed brain, perhaps, cannot choose). If we play the mutual happiness game, it's a positive-sum game. If we play the destruction of others game, it's a zero-sum game. Intelligent beings with the capacity of choice and self-control "ought" to choose to play positive-sum games, because you are more likely to win such games. It really isn't more complicated than that, in principle. (In fact this may even partly explain why social animals like humans inherit a neural system which rewards cooperative behavior with a pleasant dose of dopamine.)

(2) You are correct, when dealing with people like Hitler who decide certain groups have no rights, there can be no argument within my worldview. Instead, it's a fight. Actually, I think Hitler is a bad example, since many rational arguments appealing to facts of human empathy, history, and even self-interest can persuade most people to abandon Nazism; but I see your intended point. A better example would be to consider a serial killer psychopath born with a brain deformity. I cannot convince him that he should respect people's rights, since it is a biological fact that he has an unquenchable thirst to make his victims suffer. Nor can I convince a virus to stop infecting children. Instead, since the psychopath and virus and I cannot be reconciled, I try to throw the psychopath into prison and eradicate the virus from this world. Actually, this is all quite consistent with a naturalistic worldview. But I notice in the theistic worldview these facts pose quite a conundrum, since as you would surely concede, even with Divine justification for morals people like Hitler and psychopaths behave exactly the same way; even with the existence of God he allows Nature to take its course the same way; and disputes which cannot be resolved by facts and human reason end the same way: with a fight.

 

[Amechania]

I wonder if Dawkins knows there is a 147 page forum thread all about him? You cant buy that kind of publicity.

 

[1robin]

No, it is not a complex claim, it was just buried under confused sounding verbiage. It still begs the question though, what makes you think that Dawkins is any less entitled to voice his opinion--base on his observations and research--than some bible banger who simply insists that god exists because he believes it to be true?

Find a single statement where I used entitled or any synonym of it about Dawkins. Mischaracterization of an opponent’s argument is an indication of a weak counter position. I said he does the issue no good I never said he does not have the right to screw up what he wishes to. I even served to protect his right.

Dawkins, and others like him simply provide a scientific explanation for their assertions while those who argue against them use their [unprovable] beliefs based on some text.

I have never heard Dawkins say anything that has a meaningful impact on faith. He mostly says something biologically true or likely true and then makes an erroneous effort to apply it to a Biblical claim that he does not understand. The man he refuses to debate does not use the Bible at all in his arguments and the rest use primarily philosophic and historic truths not the Bible says it therefore it's true. I will not watch a Christian who claims that what the Bible says is true because God said it and I almost never hear a professional that does.

If you think Dawkins is to be blamed that trying the issue of god's existence is worse off, then he did a pretty good job doing that.

I did not say the argument is worse off I said the issue is worse off. The problem is especially when he delves into philosophy and theology, he has no idea what he is saying yet his words are given credibility they do not have because he is almost a deity to people who desperately look for any reason to dismiss faith. It is the same with politics. For some reason actors are always asked about politics when they have no special aptitude for the subject and many times an incompetence in it. Their status makes their words carry more meaning with ignorant people and politics is worse off for it. If that is possible. No one should care what Lady GAGA says about NAFTA and no one should care what Dawkins says about transubstantiation. Yet ignorant people do. There is no way incompetence helps an issue. If necessary I can give examples of this incompetence.

 

[1robin]

Right. That is the theistic view. As always, the atheist and theist disagree on whether Nature was created by a God, or not. However, they both believe Nature exists in the first place and, by your own admission, the Declaration says Nature endows rights. So you must concede that I am correct, that atheists like Dawkins can (if they choose) justify their own right to free speech by following a line of argument similar to that of American revolutionaries.

That is an interesting point but I do not believe it carries any weight within the context of this example. Again this is a contingent existence here. Nature in this case is a giver of rights (BTW this is not a sound argument but still the actual argument none the less) given that it was created by a rational and moral being. I do not think nature alone is a defendable explanation for rights however in this case it does not matter. In this case nature is inexorably linked with the fact it was derived from a moral agent and then and only then is it a source of rights.

Let's not argue semantics. I defined what I mean by "ought" and "moral". Either you can show that my conclusions do not reasonably follow from my definitions, or you cannot. I acknowledge that, using your definition, if "ought" refers to some justification transcending facts and reason, atheists can't justify ought statements (or naturalists, more precisely).

I am not smart enough to have a personally derived understanding of the context of "ought" in these issues. I was only supplying the context that the philosophers debate it in. It is a well-known issue. I think the discussion should be settled on the common ground of professional context.

It wasn't an explanation. As I said, it was an argument. (Just a sketch, really.)

OK

Let me emphasize that I'm not trying to persuade you. I'm only challenging your assertion that atheists like Dawkins *cannot* justify their own rights. With that goal in mind, I only sketch the route by which they could. I acknowledge theists can also justify rights (although in my opinion, that route is less meaningful). So let me just make brief points in response to what you've said here:

Let me just say that people can justify anything, I claim they can't justify rights suffeciently. As with Hitler what looks good at times starts to come apart under stress.

(1) There are in fact ways to justify that everyone, not just myself, ought to want certain similar things, such as mutual happiness rather than the destruction of others (to the extent that we can choose what we want, of course; a psychopath with a malformed brain, perhaps, cannot choose). If we play the mutual happiness game, it's a positive-sum game. If we play the destruction of others game, it's a zero-sum game. Intelligent beings with the capacity of choice and self-control "ought" to choose to play positive-sum games, because you are more likely to win such games. It really isn't more complicated than that, in principle. (In fact this may even partly explain why social animals like humans inherit a neural system which rewards cooperative behavior with a pleasant dose of dopamine.)

I think this is basically equivalent to something I saw last night. A scientist claimed that the natural laws explained the universe. The other guy said they explain the universe but they can't explain how the universe came to be. Descriptive laws can't produce anything. The equation 2 + 2 can't produce 4 elephants. I think you are describing ways that a desire can be explained. Once again descriptions do not produce anything. You may describe why you want to have free speech but that description can't produce a right to practice it. That requires a prescriptive law and that requires a prescriber. I see today is dopamine day. As an example let's take dopamine as an explanation for love. There are three types of love. Agape love which is a decision that flows from character and has nothing to do with dopamine. Phelio love is a partly emotional partly intellectual affection for let's say our fellow man. This has a little dopamine involvement but many times it does not. There is no dopamine involved in the split second it takes for a soldier to determine to save his fellow soldiers by jumping on a grenade. There is no dopamine involved in a farm boy in 1860 deciding he should risk his life to free a race of people he has never met. The third is lust and dopamine is all over that one. If Dopamine gave the right to practice love somehow you would lose that right in 75% of the cases I listed above. I may have gotten off course here but I have been in another dopamine discussion and it may have bled over. BTW why "should" I prefer a some sum game instead of a zero sum game if humans are simply biological anomalies with no worth? Explaining some of how something might work does not create a right to do it. There is an explanation of murder yet we do not have that right. Do you believe in evolution in exclusion to God? I can make the point better in that context.

(2) You are correct, when dealing with people like Hitler who decide certain groups have no rights, there can be no argument within my worldview. Instead, it's a fight. Actually, I think Hitler is a bad example, since many rational arguments appealing to facts of human empathy, history, and even self-interest can persuade most people to abandon Nazism; but I see your intended point. A better example would be to consider a serial killer psychopath born with a brain deformity. I cannot convince him that he should respect people's rights, since it is a biological fact that he has an unquenchable thirst to make his victims suffer. Nor can I convince a virus to stop infecting children. Instead, since the psychopath and virus and I cannot be reconciled, I try to throw the psychopath into prison and eradicate the virus from this world. Actually, this is all quite consistent with a naturalistic worldview. But I notice in the theistic worldview these facts pose quite a conundrum, since as you would surely concede, even with Divine justification for morals people like Hitler and psychopaths behave exactly the same way; even with the existence of God he allows Nature to take its course the same way; and disputes which cannot be resolved by facts and human reason end the same way: with a fight.

Well that was refreshing. You would perhaps be very surprised how inconvenient but obvious issues like this will be refused to be seen. Another I always find funny is that evolution is claimed perfectly able to produce every benevolent behavior possible but entirely unable to produce the more consistent with "nature, red in tooth and claw" but inconvenient behavior. The power of cognitive dissonance makes the Tsar Bomba look like a fire cracker. You are right a fight is the only result. The point I made and I think you understand is that if that fight is justified that justification will have to be found outside moral relavatism. Your system will exhibit few failures for a moral individual or group, the cracks will only appear when large societies filled with moral conflict and Biblical type (evil) are examined or sufficient justification (not explanation) is mandated. I have really enjoyed our discussion and will make sure and remember your forum name. Most of the time I find quickly that I am not debating facts or even logic. I am debating preference and desire against which facts and reason have no effect. I think you may one of the few exceptions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I wonder if Dawkins knows there is a 147 page forum thread all about him? You cant buy that kind of publicity.

I'm sure this is nothing. It wouldn't surprise me if there are forums that have threads thousands of posts long about Dawkins. He seems to really rile up the supersitious, irrational, and religious like no one else. Must be hitting pretty close to home.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm sure this is nothing. It wouldn't surprise me if there are forums that have threads thousands of posts long about Dawkins. He seems to really rile up the supersitious, irrational, and religious like no one else. Must be hitting pretty close to home.

Well, that tends to happen when some guy on TV tells you that your identity, everything that you are, is invalid and ought to be removed, replaced by an alien identity.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, that tends to happen when some guy on TV tells you that your identity, everything that you are, is invalid and ought to be removed, replaced by an alien identity.

I can turn on the TV and find far more examples of people espousing such things regarding who I am, than the other way around. All those people are still entitled to their opinions. If I got bent out of shape every time I heard something like about my perspective, I'd be bent out of shape on a regularl basis. As it is, I'm not threatened by such opinions, so I'm rarely bothered by them.

 

[Riverwolf]

I can turn on the TV and find far more examples of people espousing such things regarding who I am, than the other way around. All those people are still entitled to their opinions. If I got bent out of shape every time I heard something like about my perspective, I'd be bent out of shape on a regularl basis. As it is, I'm not threatened by such opinions, so I'm rarely bothered by them.

Because you, and I, have been trained to take that perspective. Not everyone has received such training.

 

[Simurgh]

...........snip for the usual twisting of words and repetition ......

Back to square one. You run around in circles trying to convince people that Dawkins is to blame for the fact that your god’s existence cannot be proven and/or that he does not believe that the bible proves that this god exists.
It is his position that the existence of a god cannot be proven just because some people think that some writing—in this case the bible. Of course he does not use the bible to agree with those who believe that there is a god. Why would he since he does not believe it.

And what philosophical and historical truths are there that he needs tp agree with? There are plenty of historical novels that give accurate historical details about a place and time in order to move the plot along, that does not make these works of fiction any more factual, they are still novels. Same with the bible, there are some rare historical facts mixed in with mythology, and allegories and such. Fine, but that does not mean that is an accurate record of anything. It makes no sense debating this issue.

And for you to assume that Dawkins has a cult standing is just ridiculous. You might think so because he is one of a few visible atheists with a charitable organization to his name and has written popular books, but that’s all. If you don’t want to listen to what he says, then don’t; who is going to make you?

What you construe to be incompetence“ is nothing more than your assumption that people who disagree with your worldview have no right to be heard. Why select Dawkins as the whipping boy for your diatribe anyhow. Why not simply prove that god exists and be done with it. This is seriously getting boring, the way circular arguments always do.

 

[Skeptisch]

I have never heard Dawkins say anything that has a meaningful impact on faith. .

Maybe you find something here?
Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations

Some samples:

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins, Untitled Lecture, Edinburgh Science Festival (1992)

Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-- Richard Dawkins, transcribed from a short video titled, Russel's Teapot.wmv found on yoism.org

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
-- Richard Dawkins, in "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder," The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, BBC1 Television (12 November 1996)

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

 

[Riverwolf]

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-- Richard Dawkins, transcribed from a short video titled, Russel's Teapot.wmv found on yoism.org

Uh, wrong. I'm not.

Besides, all of those quotations are the problem. They're so generalized that they're completely useless. If they really were absolutely true, humanity would have wiped itself out long ago.

The only one I can get behind is the one about open-mindedness.

He's so critical of faith, yet it's on faith that he takes such statements.

 

[McBell]

Uh, wrong. I'm not.

Really?
So you believe that every single god ever conceived exists?
Or just most of them?

Besides, all of those quotations are the problem. They're so generalized that they're completely useless. If they really were absolutely true, humanity would have wiped itself out long ago.

Interesting goal post you present.
Please be so kind as to show where Dawkins has made any claim, or even implied, that the quotes listed are "absolutely" true?

He's so critical of faith, yet it's on faith that he takes such statements.

No it isn't.
For there are an awful lot of people who fit each quote.
Some people even fit more than one of them simultaneously.

 

[atanu]

To say that he can't criticise religion - or more specifically criticising creationism - by saying that he should stay in the lab, would be actually denying his rights to free speech.

I doubt he has been in any lab much and has done much science either. I know this will inflame many but IMO, his science is limited to hypothesizing. His popularity is another matter, totally unrelated to his being a so called scientist.

I am voicing my view and no one should be inflamed.

 

[Simurgh]

Regarding Dawkins and the apparent furor he seems to cause in the creationist camp shows that they seem to be bothered when questioned in general and indicates their doubts concerning their assertions.

The other thing is, Dawkins debates those that invite him to do so. Then he gets slammed for his opinions, which he bases in his understanding of science. Why is this more problematic than some creationist insisting that the bible is the ultimate arbiter of everything and the usual platitudes concerning the existence of god?

If Dawkins and/or any atheist is asked about her/his ideas concerning religious matters than s/he should be free to answer, after all, it seems perfectly alright for creationists and other religious people to voice their opinions about science.

Or do we now insist that only numbers can teach math and that unless you are a tumor, you cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute to cancer research?

 

[Skeptisch]

...all of those quotations are the problem. They're so generalized that they're completely useless. If they really were absolutely true, humanity would have wiped itself out long ago. The only one I can get behind is the one about open-mindedness. He's so critical of faith, yet it's on faith that he takes such statements.

You seem to violate the one quotation you claim you can get behind.

 

[Riverwolf]

Really?
So you believe that every single god ever conceived exists?
Or just most of them?

Every single one.

Not that it matters. The statement itself is nonsensical. A-theism is a negation of theism. Therefore, anybody who is a theist cannot simultaneously be an atheist.

Interesting goal post you present.
Please be so kind as to show where Dawkins has made any claim, or even implied, that the quotes listed are "absolutely" true?

They are absolute statements. If he had inserted "often" or "many" or the like at key points (i.e., Faith can be powerful enough to immunize etc. etc.), then they'd be true.

His statements aren't entirely false at all. They just also aren't entirely true, as he seems to be saying. In other words, they're close. As my old band teacher used to say, "Close means wrong."

No it isn't.
For there are an awful lot of people who fit each quote.
Some people even fit more than one of them simultaneously.

His wording betrays a deep fear of anybody who follows a religion. If that's not what he was intending to communicate, he needs to clarify.

If he has done so, please show me. I would like my perception of him to be wrong, and based either on quote-mining, or just a miscommunication perhaps based on poorly-chosen words. We've all done that from time to time, I'd wager.

 

[Riverwolf]

You seem to violate the one quotation you claim you can get behind.

Well, my brain is still in my skull, and I am very much an intellectual. I value very much the ability to think.

So, no, your perception of me is not accurate, as my perception of Dawkins may be completely inaccurate. But nobody has given me any reason to change that perception, just as nobody has given him any reason to change his perception on the existence of deities.

I would also like for you to show me where you feel I violate that philosophy, as I cannot see it.

 

[McBell]

Every single one.

Fair enough.

Not that it matters. The statement itself is nonsensical. A-theism is a negation of theism. Therefore, anybody who is a theist cannot simultaneously be an atheist.

And you talk about him overgeneralizing?

They are absolute statements. If he had inserted "often" or "many" or the like at key points (i.e., Faith can be powerful enough to immunize etc. etc.), then they'd be true.

Ah, so you are more interested in the semantics of his statements than anything else...

His statements aren't entirely false at all. They just also aren't entirely true, as he seems to be saying. In other words, they're close. As my old band teacher used to say, "Close means wrong."

So you are saying that because the statements, as presented in that particular post, are wrong simply because they do not explain how the clock works when telling you what time it is?

His wording betrays a deep fear of anybody who follows a religion.

where the hell did that come from?

If that's not what he was intending to communicate, he needs to clarify.

Perhaps you should read the surrounding text from which the quotes were lifted from?

If he has done so, please show me. I would like my perception of him to be wrong, and based either on quote-mining, or just a miscommunication perhaps based on poorly-chosen words. We've all done that from time to time, I'd wager.

I do not know if your perception is wrong or not.
I am merely amused by the assumptions you make based on out of context quotes.

 

[Warren Clark]

I am sure he is concerned, however I think his concern is that what he has adopted is passed on not necessarily what is proven fact.
Much of what I have heard him comment on is things he can't possibly know. When we can't agree on what happened in the civil war when we have battle reports and thousands of book it is quite absurd and arrogant to think he knows what happened 3 billion years ago.

Actually, although we may not know exactly what happened 3 billions years ago, we do have a really good idea. The earth holds the evidence. Its in his books along with Steven Hawking's published books.

There is no way to accurately quantify Dawkin's body of work concerning religion as a response to questions.

I am simply saying he is not good at it and the issues would be better off without his input. He could be a valuable expert consultant on biology but not a prognosticator of theological philosophy.

His argument is based on the fact that people drop all reason to rely on faith alone. Which is how we get 9/11 and related incidents.
When he sees acts such as these along with people creating separate museums for the sole purpose of turning people away from reason, he has every right to be concerned and voice a very stable opinion with the facts and evidence he provides.

And all he says is you cannot know there is a God. So one should not act like they know what "He" would want on pure faith. This includes condemning children to hell because they claim to be gay or blowing up buildings in the name of said god.

If you grant the most likely facts concerning the universe. That it is not eternal, and that before it existed, nothing else did (not even quantum energy fluctuation) then it is an unavoidable conclusion that everything (not just life) came literally from nothing. I completely disagree with your claim that if God exists, life came from nothing. It came from him

This starts a whole new conversation...
I would prefer not to get into a conversation of "before the universe", etc. Because there is an endless number of theories. Of which have nothing to do with Dawkins.
Really this goes into complete theorizing without evidence.
Still there is no evidence of a god before the universe.

I think your cause and effects are getting all mixed up. Did he accept the challenge like he did with the "eye" by drawing a cartoon and claiming it proof?

What challenge?

That is a good question why are you here discussing the non existence of something? I do not believe in unicorns nor alien visitors to earth but I am never on a forum arguing against them nor do I write books about how "not great" they are.
I live as if they do not exist.

I am here discussing, at the moment, Dawkins' reputation.
Other times, about politics or science...
And if I am asked my opinion on God I give it...
And trust me, I have gotten into debates of whether or not dragons and unicorns have ever existed. Along with other myths and legends.

I actually liked Hitchens arguments. I did not agree with any of them but appreciated his wit. Have you ever seen his debate with his twin brother?

No... Hitchens bothered annoys me somewhat, although I do get where he comes from with the moral arguments and all. I would only watch him occasionally.

A law is a proposition that has no known exception. Gravity has no known exception. I disagree with the comparative adopted merit between evolution and gravity in the scientific community but even in that was the case it would be another example of their being wrong.

You are 100% correct.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
When we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.

Macroevolution nor origins have any demonstrable proof or example.
Gravity has endless examples. Evolution requires the suspension of a law of biology that has no known exceptions. Gravity is a law (in effect) and does not violate any other laws. I do not know why bacteria are relevant even if what you said is true. In evolution the chances of weaker or even lethal genetic changes are astronomically higher than improvements are. There is only a few ways to make a building better but there are an infinite number of ways to make it worse or weaker.

The chance that randomness created life has been given 1 in 10^80 and then it gets even far worse because it is necessary to attach a contigent probabilty that it will arrive with a completely intact reproductive system.

Well you are completely right again but you are missing a piece that is right under your nose.

We are constantly evolving and changing.
Babies are born with defects daily. These defects are considered the mutations that drive our evolution.
Unfortunately, as a medically advanced we see fit to fix people with these defects (such as a cleft lip and palate). Why is this unfortunate? Well because were letting these defected humans breed. I know that sounds harsh. In fact, I sound exactly like Hitler <.<
Every child that is born is a succession to our evolution.
A person or animal with a degrading defect will die out without passing its genes. Its why women generally go for the jock and boys go for the model... we are naturally attracted to what will help our genes prosper.
Micro-evolution is just a visible example because smaller organisms breed so fast. They need to breed faster to survive since each individual organism's life span is relatively short compared to that of a human being.
So again, more evidence of evolution... mutations in humans.
Whether it be physical or non-physical.
We are imperfect beings that are capable of dying from simple complications.
Including Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, AIDS, etc.
So far the only one that I listed that isn't passed on through genetics is AIDS, but HIV can develop into when passed on to an offspring.
All of these are examples of how we are evolving and why.
Soon we will find someone who is immune to something and we will use their DNA to extract a cure for said disease... all because of the way evolution works.
Not to mention the common flu. An ever evolving virus that we have yet to beat completely.