I can't believe people believe such foolishness. 'we can from atoms randomly hitting atoms from a mud puddle' LOL Without DNA, life cannot exist. Without life, there is no natural selection. DNA is a code that God created to create life and maintenance life. I watch these videos because it makes me laugh. I've laughed so hard I'm still crying!!! LOL
If by "Killing Us" he means living longer, fuller lives than ever before, then yes. I'd rather die obese and happy at 85 than thin and plague ridden at 12.
I do think there is a God, but I can't explain why our bodies are built the way they are if they were in fact "intelligently designed". But you have to remember at least according to the bible, we were made in God's image in a spiritual sense not in a physical sense. There is no giant human in space. I'm religious but I'm a realist too so I know not everything in the bible is factual. I look at it as more of a moral guide. It's not meant to be a history book.
@osirus5891 I would be really nice if every theist thought like you. And I include atheist in that too. I think we should never stop looking for answer that would help future generations, and realism is the way to go. Not by trying to stop human progress the way dogmatic people do.
from what i see today, the culture of civilization has indeed its pros and cons. Simply because many countires today have enough food to feed third world countires. But since we are so capitalistic, we refuse to be realistic about feeding those in need. There is so much damn food in the world now that 90 percent of is fucking disgusting and not healthy at all and who's to blame, these bastards who run corperations and those sneaky ass lobbiest who just want make a buck till your diabetic death
this seriesof Mr. Dawkins and Dr. Nesse is a great example of rational, very well founded scienific knowledge... i needed this after watching a lot of videos with pseudo scienists quoting the bible or the genesis,,, thank god for Richard Dawkins
Cancer is not that much elated to telomeres because cells have telomeraze enzyme which can restore them if needed.
and reason why we are not protected from cancer and our age is what it us now, is because in ancient times average life span was to short to compare to maximum lifespan. so there was no evolutionary pressure to optimize cancer protection or other features required for long life.
no, I don't have official paper on that field but I have some knowledge in that field which is way beyond average doctor.
my specialty is a bit different.
do you men that if I buy appropriate paper from local university, it will make all my words true.
If that matters, I have degree in electronic, and one student in same class got same degree while he has no clue if capacitor is different from resistor.
@GetOutOfHereCreeper I can't believe people believe such foolishness. 'we can from atoms randomly hitting atoms from a mud puddle' LOL Without DNA, life cannot exist. Without life, there is no natural selection. DNA is a code that God created to create life and maintenance life. I watch these videos because it makes me laugh. I've laughed so hard I'm still crying!!! LOL
@GetOutOfHereCreeper "Anyone thinking the eye is wired backwards is ignorant of the human eye." Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland
@GetOutOfHereCreeper Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
He said, back in time when people hurt their brain they had no chance of surviving, so there was no selection benefits to repear those tissues... isnt that a bit illogical cause being able to repear those kind of tissues would have the benefit of not dying...??
@chello122 Cellular repair takes some time. Any damage to your heart or brain would lead to death in a shorter time than required to repair those tissues.
dr neese said he does not know why we stand upright at the 3:30 mark. i was taught, for what it's worth, that bipedal motion is much more effective over long distances. so while we will lose a sprint against almost any four legged creature, we can travel long distances on relatively few calories.
@Sheikarthur I am talking about the humam race in the future, when will humans be born without them is my point. I merely brought up my wisdom teeth because it made me think about it
This is a really good interview, all parts. A lot of interesting points that are really simple and logical, yet, a lot of people, including myself, dont pay much attention to.
@EclecticSceptic I've watched all of these interviews, it isn't about intelligent design at all.
***********
What's to discuss about ID? What is ID's theory as to how the great diversity of life came about? Where is their evidence? It's not enough to say Evolution is wrong. So what if it's wrong that doesn't prove ID right. That why the Dover trial judge kicked ID into the corner, ID isn't a theory it's an antitheory.
@EclecticSceptic No I wasn't arguing just making the point that looking for a scientific explanation of ID is a waste of time and energy. No IDer that I've seen is able to do much other than scoff at Evolutionary evidence but make little or no effort to put forth his own scientific explanations for what is observed in Nature.
When's the last time you saw an IDer point to fossil & show how it proved ID?
Oh, I never read anything into people's online names & hope they return the favor.
Metabolism also plays a key role in how long a life form lives, the faster the metabolism the shorter the life form lives. Turtles live extremely long lives but smaller animals like squirrels and humming birds live only a few years at most. Men are generally more active than women, physically.
t-rex could lift 400 pounds why are they dead not use with its arms and natural selection says get rid of very thing you don't need simpal as that we not need to be we have brains fight smart not hard
animals lived thought it why not them they just weren't right for what was needed so they died our line had what was needed to live so raw power dosen't mean any thing if you don't need it
The way Nesse talks about Natural Selection is completely misleading. It's no wonder more people come to the wrong conclusions.
"Why didn't natural selection fix that one?" He's implying that NS actively changes things. It does nothing of the sort. It's a passive process and our language needs to reflect that so that the process is understood correctly.
What we really need to do is effectively educate people on the concepts involved so we don't have to constantly stop mid point to address language issues. I just want to go back to conversing about interesting things without stopping to hold the hands of those perfectly content to wonder off into traffic. Easy for me to say though as I'm Canadian and creationists don't exactly posses a lot of pull here.
Yeah but I think the problem really lies with how we express ourselves in everyday language. What he really means when says, "why didn't NS fix that?" is how the heck animals with these peculiarities survived long enough to reproduce (or in other words, why weren't they killed off and some other mechanism which was more "robust" evolved to deal successfully with these problems?). You can't blame him for animating some of these things - we do it all the time. It's part of our linguistic heritage.
"How did that get through the Natural Selection process?" would've been so much more accurate.
I am blaming him for putting it the way he does because if you don't understand what it's about (and this guy is a leading proponent of NS) then you're going to end up more confused, not more knowledgable about it.
I think he should take responsibility for, and ownership of that.
Fair enough. I still think it is very difficult to talk about these things at length without having a few of these "misleading" phrases/comments (without having to put a long disclaimer on everything you say); but I cannot deny the point you are making is very correct and presents a more reliable description of NS.
Interesting what he says at the end about the telomere. People with longer DNA telomere live longer, but often develop cancer at higher rates. Cancer as an inability to cut off hyper replication of cells.
Being that majority of the political leaders are religious and make many bias decisions based off their beliefs, it's possible that they hold back a lot of great technology and scientific knowledge that could help humanity in a great way. Again, it's possible, I may be right, may be wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this is kinda BS #1 its still a tangled mess on a donkey or whatever grazing animal u used as an example which we could not have come from #2 most backpain comes from overlifting, overweight, mineral deficiency, posture, injury #3 thats not the mechanics of cancer interactions
Indeed. Why are so many people, especially the religious, so hung up on the idea of perfection? They honestly see humanity as the pinnacle of creation.
As if evolution, as a blind, purposeless process, desires to create anything. Perfection is the process, not the lifeforms that develop.
This video is saying intelligent design is totally flawed and only evolution is the real answer. If we had an intelligent designer our bodies would be perfect, they are FAR from perfect.
the point being made is that our bodies through our anatomy and physiology, are not perfect.
Evolution makes small changes to structures and behaviour that is already there, and so evolution does not create perfect systems, it merely compensates for any defects.
Remember we only evolve to survive under the selection criteria of our environment.
No (your comments are funny) they are actually refuting intelligent(perfect) design but that might be a little too complicated for some people that believe in invisible men in the sky who made everything, as told by their magical picture books.
These are all very nice notions of us destroying the universe, but all your presenting is religious here say and conjecture, which does not even have any basis in your scripture, so I am baffled as to where you are getting this distorted universe bit
Romans 8:18-20. also talks about bondage to decay (entropy) as well as the final freedom of the universe under the rule of redeemed mankind - the Children of God. Actually we can't destroy the universe we are however the cause of all the suffering and pain in it and also the distortions from the harmony that was once in the original creation.
If man has so much power, he does not need god, because it seems that modern idioms have distorted god to fit their own needs, if his is possible, how can you be sure which denomination is correct, and how can you base you life on an interpretation of thousand year old literature, which has been admittedly changed over time, such as the changing of the Lucifer story in the old testament originally only about a king, but changed to an angel in later drafts simply for dramatic effect
The fact that some distort the truth does not mean that we all do. Many of the different denominations agree on the essentials. The Bible is complex and we are not chosen for our intelligence many make honest mistakes. The literature is old but that does not make it untrue - I find no problem interpreting it for our times. The use of the king of tyre (Ezekiel 28:11-19) as a metaphor for Satan = use of the visible to explain the invisible, a common literary device of the Bible.
In a matter of speaking you did, you claim it does not matter if the subject matter is outdated and false so long as it prolongs your ideals, That is like me saying the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, like Christians did until science disproved them, yet you will carry on with falsehoods
No what I meant was that we have never had all the facts about the nature of the universe or the nature of its creator - its been a gradual process. Most of the ground breaking scientists: Newton, Faraday, Capernicus, Galileo to name a few, had a strong belief in God and many still do. Francis Collins, head of the human genome project is one. We have a perponderence of science teachers and lecturers in our church 4 of whom have Phd's. Good science is no threat to us at all we love it.
"In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design."
You should really ask those science teachers and lectures for some advice, or more usefully get a book on science.
Um, tales edited for pure dramatic effect and realistic intentions. Pick one, either it is dramatic metaphors or it is historical accounting. Can't be both at once if given 1000s of years to change and be "proofread"....
The design necessary for a man to stand upright & do all the things we are capable of is mind boggling. For the record I am nearly 62 and I don't have the slightest bit of back pain in spite of the fact that I spent the early part of my life on a large sheep and cattle station. Also I don't have twisted bowels or cancer and I have probably outlived by a factor of 3 most of the donkeys that were born in 1947. If I were committed to evolution I would be embarrassed by these guys.
The point I was making is that the design is actually very good if people can last 62 years and more without experiencing back pain. I would think the same of a motor car that reached that many years without say a motor replacement. Perhaps one might look beyond the design as the reason for the back pain and consider other factors. I am not committed to evolution but i am not unaware of some good arguments in favour of it. I just don't think thee guys have come up with any.
so your entire agrument against evolution and the body being horrible designed is this, you are one of the few who don't feel back pain at that age?
II have cerebral palsy, a mild case but it still makes all muscles on my right side tighter and without stretching them pain.
The human body was not designed by anything. It is just far too flawed to be designed. Unless that designer (aka god) is mentally handicapped and just happened to be drunk and high when they "designed" humans.
No, my entire argument against evolution is not that I don't feel back pain. In fact i am not arguing against evolution as such just against the idea that the only cause of imperfections in our bodies is the design factor. I am simply putting forward the view that the physical problems may be down to things that have occured after we were designed. It is a reasonable question. I cited my own fortunate case to suggest that, nothing more.
So if a god, or "intelligent designer" made us, one would expect we would be perfect. And any imperfections would fix itself, there is even a way for that to happen. DNA.
Saying that our problems occurred after a perfect being like a god designed us, is saying how weak that god was. I mean if I thought of using DNA to keep our designed bodies perfect a god didn't, that's just pathetic on that "gods" part.
DNA can become damaged and lead to cancer, and traits can be maladaptive. Its called a trade off or a give and take. I don't see why you are arguing that God had to make us perfect. Its entirely the opposite. In fact the ability to change and adapt is what an evolutionist should consider to be perfect as this is the fundamental reason behind the survival of all populations. The ability for a population to change is proportional to its survivability.
Perhaps the ability to adapt and vary within species is hard wired and part of the design. Natural selection may also be hard wired into the system. It has the effect of maintaining standards, feeding those higher up the food chain and reducing unwanted variations. The mate selection process of most living things I would suggest not only acts as a quality control device but also reduces the chances of significant variations. It would appear that the dice is a bit loaded against evolution.
This question is about the origin of evil. Such a discussion would never occur except that we are hard wired to expect a better world than the one we have. We raise it also because it is impossible to overlook the incredible elegence in the way life operates at both the macro and micro level. How is it that such elegance could at the same time be so marred? No designer = no one to blame and no logical reason to complain. Designer = someone to blame, but who? Him or us?
evolution may attempt to make animals and organisms "perfect" but as this 3 part video shows, it's just not possible. There is always trade offs because of how our bodies evolved to adapt to the environment.
And unlike what a designer can do, evolution can only work with what is there already. It can never start over. Like with our eye, however flawed it might be, it will still be like that.
That question was reasonable, but falls apart relatively easily.
evolution is exactly the opposite of making things "perfect." What defines perfect anyway? A perfectionist can find imperfections in anything. Evolution is propelled by natural selection. Its all about what works and what doesn't work to help you survive. Hence the terms, Maladaptive traits and adaptive traits for which adaptive traits are selected for.
When engineers design things they always have to make compensations and 'trade offs'. A perfect design is not one with every possible feature but one which is the most appropriate in terms of purpose. Engineers also tend only to be able to build on the knowledge that already exists - the process from a simple chariot to an Army tank took quite a long time. Process over time does not therefore rule out design.
That's because over time we developed a much more efficient method of steering. Its one of the benifits of intellgence especially when we adopt lateral thinking and a bit of creativity. The question left now is to discover where those abilities came from. Come to think of it why do we bother getting into these discussions when they are hardly necessary for survival. If we are no more than food for worms it will hardly matters what we believe about our origins.
You've completely missed the point of these videos.
Evolutionary biology is not some abstract discussion about our origins but instead it helps with our understanding of medicine, an example where creation myths retards medicine.
The assertions are that the body is not a machine and is not well designed. Rather than address these two assertions and the several points raised to illustrate them you continue on claiming the wonderful design of this great machine is evidence of a designer.
Actually our origins do nothing one way or another for medicine. Medicine comes from studying the human as he is today not how he might have been ten thousand years ago. However the drive to do medicine comes from the idea that humans are inherently valuable because they are created i the image of God. The so called created myth is not science but a revelation of the purpose of the universe and our place in it. It also explains why justice, science, philosophy, history etc are so important.
Perhaps the answer is that its not just a matter of function but also of balance and aesthetics. Evolutionary theory does not explain the origin of beauty and the amazing symmetry we find in most living things. Especially when that symmetry is not always necessary for proper function. The plume of the peacock may not be for the benifit of the pea hen alone especially when the plain looking sparrow is just as successful at getting his leg over.
I was hoping that I'd get you to make one responsive comment, but I was too optimistic. It seems you didn't even watch the videos, you couldn't understand them or you just forgot content. Instead you come up with one non sequitur after another.
Evolutionary medicine is understanding the body as it is, based on the path of it's evolution, with it's vestiges, its poor design as well as its great design.
Instead of refuting that, you just prefer to ignore it.
The use of insults is not all that scientific and is usually a sign of one loosing ground in the debate. The fact is whether you see the design of the human as flawed or not is irelevant, medicine must deal with what is not what might have been or what was. Some of the great discoveries in medicine were made by theists and many by atheists - often working together. Tell me one medical breakthrough that relied on any theory of origins for its success.
Oh calling you pathetic is logical, I outlined exactly why and pathetic was the conclusion.
I can see you've made an attempt at a responsive reply but not surprisingly you seem to have missed the point about about a "debate". I'm not losing ground in a debate as there is none here. Simply stating an opposite view is not a debate.
Your :one medical breakthough" is mentioned in the video, along with a couple of others.
All the answers are available if you were less arrogant and listened.
There is not one single medical breakthrough mentioned that relies on any particular view of origins. The reason most medical books don't talk about it as he suggests is because its irrelevant. Also the reason we stand upright is because, among other things, we are designed to do great things with our hands. Finally a few babies are born with twisted bowels because of birth trauma or mutations. Their are many possible reasons apart from design that cause back pain. Ever heard of football?
After all that you finally managed to make a post that was more or less on topic and presented sort of like an argument. Unfortunately you've maintained your arrogant assertion style. Based on your demonstrated ignorance of evolution & biology that's not getting you far.
Arguing science with religious types is fruitless, all they do is assert the things they believe as they are completely unable to make a rational argument. Rational thinking is not their preserve.
If you had good solid evidence and logic on your side you would not have to resort to childish pejorative comments. I have sought to respectfully put the case that the things we observe in nature can reasonable point to design especially, as I have argued, when those who vehemently seek to refute that possiblity do so with so little rational argument as our friends in this video.
Each of these men are experts and have written vast amounts on this subject. You have shown that you are completely ignorant of the subject and unable to form a coherent argument.
For example your assertion that we stand upright so we can use our hands is logically unsound - that might just be a lucky side effect of standing up to see further. Regardless of the truth of this assertion you are unable to relate it to the subject. We stand up, and we have consequences, some good, some bad.
"I would think the same of a motor car that reached that many years without a motor replacement"
Motorcars are made in a short period of time by limited humans, and yet they still stand the test of time better than what some claim to be the creations of a perfect being with no time constraints.
It shows you the difference between sentient design and accumulative compounding - the former is more effective even when the latter has billions of years. Strong argument against divine creation
I thought I did. The biosphere shows many signs that it was not sentiently created, as sentiently created things are more efficient, durable and organised. In nature, genomes are mostly redundant, bodies gradually become less effective, and there is no order (it neither favours predator nor prey, as both are adapted - what a mess!)
These are signs of purely apathetic machinary (selection events discriminating on genetic programming) being responsible for its development, not sentient creation
How on earth are you going to know if sentiently created things are more or less efficient if as you claim nothing we observe was sentielty created. To say one thing is different to another you have to have both things at hand to make the comparison. Ie you need a control biosphere. Things are either created imperfectly or created perfectly but misused or distorted. Your view will depend on your philosophical world view and whether or not you believe in divine revelation.
"How on earth are you going to know if sentiently created things are more or less efficient if as you claim nothing we observe was sentielty created"
What are you talking about? Of course we observe sentiently creatd things - take computers for example. AS humans have progressed, and become more intelligent (i.e. more advanced in sentience), they become more efficient, durable and organised. Far mroe so, indeed, than anything in nature.
Your assumption is that the problem is one of design. when somthing seems not to be working well it may be down to the way is has been used or some dramatic chance that has occured since it was designed. we may be looking at something that is designed well but undergone subsequent distortion
Taken at face value, I could transfer what you have said to any disease, saying that incorrect use of the human body has led to the propulsion of deadly diseases, and that the perfect human body was indestructible and has been distorted by misuse, making it susceptible to said diseases. That makes no sense, because what can account for the survival of mankind then, if we so grossly abused our old perfect bodies that we now can blame ourselves for every single kind of human ailment.
Humans have survived partly because we are incredibly resilient, parlty because we can alter our environment and partly becuse our creator still loves us. we are not totally destroyed but distorted as is the whole universe.
You give us quite a bit of credit, and then piss on our advancement by saying that we still only survive as a species because God wills it. That's so . . . humane of you.
I am so tired of hearing you religious people say that we're broken and fallen and in need of salvation. Your God created the very circumstances necessary to enable us to fall, and allowed it to happen because of the gift of "free will?" That's some loving god you've got there.
Then what can account for diseases an imperfections in animals? They have no souls and can not morally do wrong because they have no knowledge of it (according to Christianity). Then how can they misuse their bodies and therefore become prey to their own set of ailments, unless the misuse you speak of is not based on morals but function. But this then would be a logical absurdity because mankind still exists, as do all other forms of life that have not gone extinct yet
When you create beings with God like abilities like humans and give them the ability to make choices, you create something that has an enormous capacity for both good and evil. If we as a human race chose to do evil the effect will be to distort everything so that we may still see evidence of the brilliance in design but also the horror of the distortions. Sometimes we look a bit like a ferrari that's gone too many miles without a service.
Again, you completely ignore everything in the video.
One question. Does God fart? Does he ejeculate unneeded sperm or does he masturbate regularly? Will we shit in heaven? What will the lions eat? There will be lions in heaven right?
I don't know Richard, you're almost 70 I think you and I are doing better than we would as hunter-gatherers. I'm not sure most humans lived long enough to be afflicted with so many of the troubles discussed in this video. If it wasn't a problem for so many millions of years what would be the evolutionary benefit to fixing these issues? It's as if a there's a hole in the road 70km along it, however everybody in the community lives no further than 50km on the road, so they don't repare it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
stupid video... this guy claimed i want fatty and sugary foods, my body craves salt and flesh only... fat old white men need to get real... scence = observation not factitious.. common sense law #1 everyone has different taste buds.
When making general statements about the human body, one must look at average people. The average person with enough to eat and no special mutations for burning absurd amounts of fat will get overweight if not forced to excercise. The foods a lot of people like for their taste (McDonald's burgers springs to mind) are fatty and basically unhealthy.
That you've convinced yourself that you only like vegetables does not change the general trend.
so that means im not average or the general population apparently likes macdonalds? And what quotient of this poupulation matters, cause I can pretty much attest in the grand scale of thing probably less than 50% of the world likes "Mickey D's" or find it tastey.
Again 1 point to the balding white men that think they can explain everything.
BTW I eat more meat then vegetables, preferably turkey is the one I must enjoy. But Pretty much many meats, and whole grains rule my diet. 5'11" 155lbs
Nest I also want to propose what is the average person... I can easily argue that people are pursuaded more by society than "taste" of food when choosing a diet. For instance a kid growing up generally eating mac Donalds even tho un healthy tends to rely on it, more so than a child grown up with out it... When it comes to nture versus nuture, I think diets lean more so on the nuture, then the nature. Thus is why usually fat people reside in America, not Thailand.. Unless thai's aren't average.
Ps: MacDonalds burgers and fries taste very gross, a good fastfood burger that's pretty popular is wendy's I especially love the salty taste they have, well mine does anyways, I don't know about everyone elses. Nor should I. And for Fries I prefer Checkers.. but I ususally don't eat fries.. or get combos, as soda is disgusting.. water and tea taste better to me as they are actual fluids, not a bunch of sugar bubbles that foam in ur mouth, before turning into dyed gross tasting water.
The point was that given a sample of random people, the majority of them would (taste-wise) prefer food high in fats, salts or sugars - the "tasty stuff". This gets problematic when most of our foods are relatively high in salts, sugars and/or fats (since it sells, because people like it), and there's an abundant supply of it. Most people 150 years ago wouldn't have had access to the amount of "tasty" food the average american has today.
SO basically your saying, If go to Japan, with a Mac Donald's hamburger and fed it to kids they are going to like it, cause within 150 years the minds of humans evolved to like fatty/tasty foods (which one can argue that all tasty foods aren't full of sugar or fats)?
Does enviroment not account for anything, or upbringing? I mean honestly, It's like telling me im a mutant cause fatty sugary foods don't please me. What does salt have anything to do with fats? Sugars become fat atleast...
That and you know salt is kind of like a high necessity in people's diet. Sugar is not really... so i don't even see why compare the 2... if anyone asked me i prefer salty over sweet any day. Chips > nasty old cake.. anyways I see it as asinine as generalizing the world to liking something, there's no way to know what the average human likes, this study was based off a small populous that probably grew up in the same type of cultural fashion to produce results favorable to this bee ess.
Instead of having this one guy in galsses tell you that all people like sugar, lets try to recognize that as a whole, most people may not like sugars as much as those people from these "modern societies" might. And that people are generally different then eachother, assuming someone likes sugar cause a lil survery suggests that an upper limit of 75% of the people like sugar is asinine, just as much assuming everyone is a heterosexual, or enjoys videogames.
not really .. hunter gatherer societies have managed to survive and get the right nutrition just fine. berries, meat, etc. all depends on ones environment. furthermore farmer societies even to this day live just fine by growing their own foods
I wouldn't be so extreme as to say our modern life is killing us. From what I've heard Dawkins and others say before, our modern lifestyle has greatly extended our lifespan.
More apt to say that our modern conveniences which SHOULD be extending our lives tempt too many gluttonous motherfuckers who have too little self control and can't stop shoving shit in their mouths.
This has been flagged as spam show
I can't believe people believe such foolishness. 'we can from atoms randomly hitting atoms from a mud puddle' LOL Without DNA, life cannot exist. Without life, there is no natural selection. DNA is a code that God created to create life and maintenance life. I watch these videos because it makes me laugh. I've laughed so hard I'm still crying!!! LOL
6630mcdo 3 months ago
the title should be; Intelligent Design, killing our mordern life style!
Typho0n86 4 months ago
If by "Killing Us" he means living longer, fuller lives than ever before, then yes. I'd rather die obese and happy at 85 than thin and plague ridden at 12.
kev3d 4 months ago
kinda fun that he compares humans with a Donkey xD
TheGoatherdGod 6 months ago
I do think there is a God, but I can't explain why our bodies are built the way they are if they were in fact "intelligently designed". But you have to remember at least according to the bible, we were made in God's image in a spiritual sense not in a physical sense. There is no giant human in space. I'm religious but I'm a realist too so I know not everything in the bible is factual. I look at it as more of a moral guide. It's not meant to be a history book.
osirus5891 7 months ago
@osirus5891 I would be really nice if every theist thought like you. And I include atheist in that too. I think we should never stop looking for answer that would help future generations, and realism is the way to go. Not by trying to stop human progress the way dogmatic people do.
assalane 7 months ago
@osirus5891 A moral guide than includes a morally perfect being that feels free to repeatedly commit genocide.
neverfearchrisishere 5 months ago
from what i see today, the culture of civilization has indeed its pros and cons. Simply because many countires today have enough food to feed third world countires. But since we are so capitalistic, we refuse to be realistic about feeding those in need. There is so much damn food in the world now that 90 percent of is fucking disgusting and not healthy at all and who's to blame, these bastards who run corperations and those sneaky ass lobbiest who just want make a buck till your diabetic death
Sense0with0humor 9 months ago
this seriesof Mr. Dawkins and Dr. Nesse is a great example of rational, very well founded scienific knowledge... i needed this after watching a lot of videos with pseudo scienists quoting the bible or the genesis,,, thank god for Richard Dawkins
MrLuiS3rd 10 months ago
This is a bit wrong.
Cancer is not that much elated to telomeres because cells have telomeraze enzyme which can restore them if needed.
and reason why we are not protected from cancer and our age is what it us now, is because in ancient times average life span was to short to compare to maximum lifespan. so there was no evolutionary pressure to optimize cancer protection or other features required for long life.
deltaxcd 1 year ago
@deltaxcd Do you have a degree in medicine? I'm taking their word for it.
livingdeadgrl18 5 months ago
@livingdeadgrl18
This is not related to medicine in any way, it is molecular biology.
deltaxcd 5 months ago
@deltaxcd Let me rephrase my question then. Do you have a degree in the specified field?
livingdeadgrl18 5 months ago
@livingdeadgrl18
no, I don't have official paper on that field but I have some knowledge in that field which is way beyond average doctor.
my specialty is a bit different.
do you men that if I buy appropriate paper from local university, it will make all my words true.
If that matters, I have degree in electronic, and one student in same class got same degree while he has no clue if capacitor is different from resistor.
So it cant be used as any proof of knowledge.
deltaxcd 5 months ago
@deltaxcd Based on your grammar I doubt you have a very in depth understanding of anything other than what's on TV at the moment.
livingdeadgrl18 5 months ago
@livingdeadgrl18
my grammar is like that because English is not my native language.
and my language is very incompatible with English grammar.
deltaxcd 5 months ago
God must be a fan of Picasso.
GetOutOfHereCreeper 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@GetOutOfHereCreeper I can't believe people believe such foolishness. 'we can from atoms randomly hitting atoms from a mud puddle' LOL Without DNA, life cannot exist. Without life, there is no natural selection. DNA is a code that God created to create life and maintenance life. I watch these videos because it makes me laugh. I've laughed so hard I'm still crying!!! LOL
6630mcdo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GetOutOfHereCreeper "Anyone thinking the eye is wired backwards is ignorant of the human eye." Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland
6630mcdo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GetOutOfHereCreeper Dr George Marshall, an eye-disease researcher from the University of Glasgow, Scotland MUST watch his YouTube video : DAWKINS´S POOR EYE DESIGN NONSENSE EXPOSED !! - PART 1"
6630mcdo 3 months ago
He said, back in time when people hurt their brain they had no chance of surviving, so there was no selection benefits to repear those tissues... isnt that a bit illogical cause being able to repear those kind of tissues would have the benefit of not dying...??
chello122 1 year ago
@chello122 Cellular repair takes some time. Any damage to your heart or brain would lead to death in a shorter time than required to repair those tissues.
HKOverlord117 1 year ago
Why have a penis or a vagina if god doesn't want us to use them. Wouldn't we sprout them after we get married?
Why cut the foreskin - if we were supposedly made in his image - does god have a dick? and if he does - did he get circumcised?
newloser 1 year ago
dr neese said he does not know why we stand upright at the 3:30 mark. i was taught, for what it's worth, that bipedal motion is much more effective over long distances. so while we will lose a sprint against almost any four legged creature, we can travel long distances on relatively few calories.
me86680 1 year ago
Why would a loving God design humans with back pain?
BLARGanot 1 year ago
@dirtydonki yeah some intelligent design! well if 'God' made us he is a pretty awful designer
derrixk 1 year ago
I wonder when natural selection is going to work on wisdom teeth, just had mine removed what a pain.
manutdfan4321 1 year ago
@manutdfan4321 Do you get you gotta die in order of it to work?
Sheikarthur 1 year ago
@manutdfan4321 Do you get that in order for natural selection to work you gotta die?
Sheikarthur 1 year ago
@Sheikarthur I am talking about the humam race in the future, when will humans be born without them is my point. I merely brought up my wisdom teeth because it made me think about it
manutdfan4321 1 year ago
We never walked on all 4s
nowareman 1 year ago
@nowareman Actually we did.
salahhe 1 year ago
@nowareman Mmmm yeah we did, read a book and you'll learn all about it. It's absolutely fascinating and far more beautiful than any creation story.
swampyziggy123 1 year ago
lol 668 thumbs up to 80 down!!
RAMSEY1987 1 year ago
This is a really good interview, all parts. A lot of interesting points that are really simple and logical, yet, a lot of people, including myself, dont pay much attention to.
Diabolojr 2 years ago
I've watched all of these interviews, it isn't about intelligent design at all.
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago 3
@EclecticSceptic I've watched all of these interviews, it isn't about intelligent design at all.
***********
What's to discuss about ID? What is ID's theory as to how the great diversity of life came about? Where is their evidence? It's not enough to say Evolution is wrong. So what if it's wrong that doesn't prove ID right. That why the Dover trial judge kicked ID into the corner, ID isn't a theory it's an antitheory.
dimbulb23 2 years ago 3
I don't know if you are arguing with me or just making a statement using what I said as a jumping off point. If it's the earlier, refer to my name.
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
@EclecticSceptic No I wasn't arguing just making the point that looking for a scientific explanation of ID is a waste of time and energy. No IDer that I've seen is able to do much other than scoff at Evolutionary evidence but make little or no effort to put forth his own scientific explanations for what is observed in Nature.
When's the last time you saw an IDer point to fossil & show how it proved ID?
Oh, I never read anything into people's online names & hope they return the favor.
dimbulb23 2 years ago
great
twinkazz 2 years ago
Metabolism also plays a key role in how long a life form lives, the faster the metabolism the shorter the life form lives. Turtles live extremely long lives but smaller animals like squirrels and humming birds live only a few years at most. Men are generally more active than women, physically.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
i have a solution for giving patients codeine and them not coughing. give codeine+bong hits =] problem solved.
defect530 2 years ago
Nice, I'm going to try that right now.. wait I'm not sick, I'll try it anyway.
Jimpsterr 2 years ago
that's also my solution for a bad day.
BillKiernan 2 years ago
i prefer hydrocodone but yeah, good for a hard day. to bad they feel the need to put poisonous acetaminophen in with it.
defect530 2 years ago
I think this guy just converted me to star wars.
c9rm3n 2 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
if natural selection was true we would all be super strong fast and smart but evoulution is dum dum stupid head
TheNarlyBones 2 years ago
t-rex could lift 400 pounds why are they dead not use with its arms and natural selection says get rid of very thing you don't need simpal as that we not need to be we have brains fight smart not hard
kokofan50 2 years ago
i thought it was a big meteor fool
TheNarlyBones 2 years ago
animals lived thought it why not them they just weren't right for what was needed so they died our line had what was needed to live so raw power dosen't mean any thing if you don't need it
kokofan50 2 years ago
Comment removed
Spudthecat1 2 years ago
The way Nesse talks about Natural Selection is completely misleading. It's no wonder more people come to the wrong conclusions.
"Why didn't natural selection fix that one?" He's implying that NS actively changes things. It does nothing of the sort. It's a passive process and our language needs to reflect that so that the process is understood correctly.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
What we really need to do is effectively educate people on the concepts involved so we don't have to constantly stop mid point to address language issues. I just want to go back to conversing about interesting things without stopping to hold the hands of those perfectly content to wonder off into traffic. Easy for me to say though as I'm Canadian and creationists don't exactly posses a lot of pull here.
preachingsin 2 years ago
Yeah but I think the problem really lies with how we express ourselves in everyday language. What he really means when says, "why didn't NS fix that?" is how the heck animals with these peculiarities survived long enough to reproduce (or in other words, why weren't they killed off and some other mechanism which was more "robust" evolved to deal successfully with these problems?). You can't blame him for animating some of these things - we do it all the time. It's part of our linguistic heritage.
JimboParadox 2 years ago
"How did that get through the Natural Selection process?" would've been so much more accurate.
I am blaming him for putting it the way he does because if you don't understand what it's about (and this guy is a leading proponent of NS) then you're going to end up more confused, not more knowledgable about it.
I think he should take responsibility for, and ownership of that.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
Fair enough. I still think it is very difficult to talk about these things at length without having a few of these "misleading" phrases/comments (without having to put a long disclaimer on everything you say); but I cannot deny the point you are making is very correct and presents a more reliable description of NS.
JimboParadox 2 years ago
i like how this is done
itstheownage 2 years ago
Next mass wipe out Zombie epidemic!!!
Ampex101 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
♥† HOW TO GET SAVED FROM HELL and HAVE ETERNAL and EVERLASTING LIFE IN HEAVEN!: visit my channel for link in description. †♥
howtogetsaved 2 years ago
i wanna live forever as one big tumor
keggerous 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Interesting what he says at the end about the telomere. People with longer DNA telomere live longer, but often develop cancer at higher rates. Cancer as an inability to cut off hyper replication of cells.
svengalistudios 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your an animal Richard Dawkins, so go shit in your garden. Now! Good boy.
0GlenBenton0 2 years ago
Being that majority of the political leaders are religious and make many bias decisions based off their beliefs, it's possible that they hold back a lot of great technology and scientific knowledge that could help humanity in a great way. Again, it's possible, I may be right, may be wrong.
SSJCykoD 2 years ago 2
Like Bush banning embryonic stem cell research
AceBean27 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is kinda BS #1 its still a tangled mess on a donkey or whatever grazing animal u used as an example which we could not have come from #2 most backpain comes from overlifting, overweight, mineral deficiency, posture, injury #3 thats not the mechanics of cancer interactions
archangel11b 2 years ago
#1 he was using an example,not saying people come from donkeys
#2 The poor design is to blame!
#3 so where did you become a doctor?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
1) you missed the point
2) you missed the point
3) you missed the point
AceBean27 2 years ago
very intresting and informative.
Phangaea 2 years ago
this is the most intresting stuff ever.
xtcx2e 2 years ago 4
evolution will not make things perfect. i see it as trial and error, or even just adding little "perks" every so often
dgkjoey 2 years ago 3
Indeed. Why are so many people, especially the religious, so hung up on the idea of perfection? They honestly see humanity as the pinnacle of creation.
As if evolution, as a blind, purposeless process, desires to create anything. Perfection is the process, not the lifeforms that develop.
RhunDraco 2 years ago
This video is saying intelligent design is totally flawed and only evolution is the real answer. If we had an intelligent designer our bodies would be perfect, they are FAR from perfect.
ojideagu 2 years ago 7
the point being made is that our bodies through our anatomy and physiology, are not perfect.
Evolution makes small changes to structures and behaviour that is already there, and so evolution does not create perfect systems, it merely compensates for any defects.
Remember we only evolve to survive under the selection criteria of our environment.
DaywalkerSRB 2 years ago 3
No (your comments are funny) they are actually refuting intelligent(perfect) design but that might be a little too complicated for some people that believe in invisible men in the sky who made everything, as told by their magical picture books.
DasHortH 2 years ago 3
I haven't inherited any physical or mental problems. I'm more evolved than the rest of you. Amen.
knowwaie 2 years ago
Back pain! I was waiting for that. Some fucking designer.
revjimbob 2 years ago 41
@revjimbob LOL!
xn117 1 year ago
I really enjoy listening to Randolph Nesse, what a nice guy. Thanks for uploading.
motile2 2 years ago 44
@motile2 I agree. Very smart man and very fair.
Savantrick 1 year ago
These are all very nice notions of us destroying the universe, but all your presenting is religious here say and conjecture, which does not even have any basis in your scripture, so I am baffled as to where you are getting this distorted universe bit
Brenaim 2 years ago
Romans 8:18-20. also talks about bondage to decay (entropy) as well as the final freedom of the universe under the rule of redeemed mankind - the Children of God. Actually we can't destroy the universe we are however the cause of all the suffering and pain in it and also the distortions from the harmony that was once in the original creation.
hicksi61 2 years ago
If man has so much power, he does not need god, because it seems that modern idioms have distorted god to fit their own needs, if his is possible, how can you be sure which denomination is correct, and how can you base you life on an interpretation of thousand year old literature, which has been admittedly changed over time, such as the changing of the Lucifer story in the old testament originally only about a king, but changed to an angel in later drafts simply for dramatic effect
Brenaim 2 years ago
The fact that some distort the truth does not mean that we all do. Many of the different denominations agree on the essentials. The Bible is complex and we are not chosen for our intelligence many make honest mistakes. The literature is old but that does not make it untrue - I find no problem interpreting it for our times. The use of the king of tyre (Ezekiel 28:11-19) as a metaphor for Satan = use of the visible to explain the invisible, a common literary device of the Bible.
hicksi61 2 years ago
So you are saying it is fine to teach people lies, just as long as they suit your purpose
Brenaim 2 years ago 2
I didn't say that!
hicksi61 2 years ago
In a matter of speaking you did, you claim it does not matter if the subject matter is outdated and false so long as it prolongs your ideals, That is like me saying the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, like Christians did until science disproved them, yet you will carry on with falsehoods
Brenaim 2 years ago
No what I meant was that we have never had all the facts about the nature of the universe or the nature of its creator - its been a gradual process. Most of the ground breaking scientists: Newton, Faraday, Capernicus, Galileo to name a few, had a strong belief in God and many still do. Francis Collins, head of the human genome project is one. We have a perponderence of science teachers and lecturers in our church 4 of whom have Phd's. Good science is no threat to us at all we love it.
hicksi61 2 years ago
I'm glad to hear it
Brenaim 2 years ago
"In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design."
You should really ask those science teachers and lectures for some advice, or more usefully get a book on science.
spoddie 2 years ago
Um, tales edited for pure dramatic effect and realistic intentions. Pick one, either it is dramatic metaphors or it is historical accounting. Can't be both at once if given 1000s of years to change and be "proofread"....
onijester56 2 years ago 3
We're all just particles going through a sieve, people.
pizzaguynumberone 3 years ago
The design necessary for a man to stand upright & do all the things we are capable of is mind boggling. For the record I am nearly 62 and I don't have the slightest bit of back pain in spite of the fact that I spent the early part of my life on a large sheep and cattle station. Also I don't have twisted bowels or cancer and I have probably outlived by a factor of 3 most of the donkeys that were born in 1947. If I were committed to evolution I would be embarrassed by these guys.
hicksi61 3 years ago
so back pain does not exist because you don't suffer from it?
I don't that 's a very mature argument at all and I wouldn't be so proud to reach 62 and still be making such flawed arguments.
pete975 3 years ago
The point I was making is that the design is actually very good if people can last 62 years and more without experiencing back pain. I would think the same of a motor car that reached that many years without say a motor replacement. Perhaps one might look beyond the design as the reason for the back pain and consider other factors. I am not committed to evolution but i am not unaware of some good arguments in favour of it. I just don't think thee guys have come up with any.
hicksi61 3 years ago
so your entire agrument against evolution and the body being horrible designed is this, you are one of the few who don't feel back pain at that age?
II have cerebral palsy, a mild case but it still makes all muscles on my right side tighter and without stretching them pain.
The human body was not designed by anything. It is just far too flawed to be designed. Unless that designer (aka god) is mentally handicapped and just happened to be drunk and high when they "designed" humans.
mecher3k 3 years ago
No, my entire argument against evolution is not that I don't feel back pain. In fact i am not arguing against evolution as such just against the idea that the only cause of imperfections in our bodies is the design factor. I am simply putting forward the view that the physical problems may be down to things that have occured after we were designed. It is a reasonable question. I cited my own fortunate case to suggest that, nothing more.
hicksi61 3 years ago
No offense that but is a horrible argument.
So if a god, or "intelligent designer" made us, one would expect we would be perfect. And any imperfections would fix itself, there is even a way for that to happen. DNA.
Saying that our problems occurred after a perfect being like a god designed us, is saying how weak that god was. I mean if I thought of using DNA to keep our designed bodies perfect a god didn't, that's just pathetic on that "gods" part.
mecher3k 3 years ago
DNA can become damaged and lead to cancer, and traits can be maladaptive. Its called a trade off or a give and take. I don't see why you are arguing that God had to make us perfect. Its entirely the opposite. In fact the ability to change and adapt is what an evolutionist should consider to be perfect as this is the fundamental reason behind the survival of all populations. The ability for a population to change is proportional to its survivability.
hash1212 3 years ago
Perhaps the ability to adapt and vary within species is hard wired and part of the design. Natural selection may also be hard wired into the system. It has the effect of maintaining standards, feeding those higher up the food chain and reducing unwanted variations. The mate selection process of most living things I would suggest not only acts as a quality control device but also reduces the chances of significant variations. It would appear that the dice is a bit loaded against evolution.
hicksi61 3 years ago
This question is about the origin of evil. Such a discussion would never occur except that we are hard wired to expect a better world than the one we have. We raise it also because it is impossible to overlook the incredible elegence in the way life operates at both the macro and micro level. How is it that such elegance could at the same time be so marred? No designer = no one to blame and no logical reason to complain. Designer = someone to blame, but who? Him or us?
hicksi61 3 years ago
evolution may attempt to make animals and organisms "perfect" but as this 3 part video shows, it's just not possible. There is always trade offs because of how our bodies evolved to adapt to the environment.
And unlike what a designer can do, evolution can only work with what is there already. It can never start over. Like with our eye, however flawed it might be, it will still be like that.
That question was reasonable, but falls apart relatively easily.
mecher3k 3 years ago
evolution is exactly the opposite of making things "perfect." What defines perfect anyway? A perfectionist can find imperfections in anything. Evolution is propelled by natural selection. Its all about what works and what doesn't work to help you survive. Hence the terms, Maladaptive traits and adaptive traits for which adaptive traits are selected for.
hash1212 3 years ago
When engineers design things they always have to make compensations and 'trade offs'. A perfect design is not one with every possible feature but one which is the most appropriate in terms of purpose. Engineers also tend only to be able to build on the knowledge that already exists - the process from a simple chariot to an Army tank took quite a long time. Process over time does not therefore rule out design.
hicksi61 3 years ago
I'd be pretty surprised to find a horse harness on the front of main battle tank.
spoddie 3 years ago
That's because over time we developed a much more efficient method of steering. Its one of the benifits of intellgence especially when we adopt lateral thinking and a bit of creativity. The question left now is to discover where those abilities came from. Come to think of it why do we bother getting into these discussions when they are hardly necessary for survival. If we are no more than food for worms it will hardly matters what we believe about our origins.
hicksi61 3 years ago
Now I know why tanks don't have horse harnesses but I still have to wonder about human vestiges.
spoddie 3 years ago
You've completely missed the point of these videos.
Evolutionary biology is not some abstract discussion about our origins but instead it helps with our understanding of medicine, an example where creation myths retards medicine.
The assertions are that the body is not a machine and is not well designed. Rather than address these two assertions and the several points raised to illustrate them you continue on claiming the wonderful design of this great machine is evidence of a designer.
spoddie 3 years ago
Actually our origins do nothing one way or another for medicine. Medicine comes from studying the human as he is today not how he might have been ten thousand years ago. However the drive to do medicine comes from the idea that humans are inherently valuable because they are created i the image of God. The so called created myth is not science but a revelation of the purpose of the universe and our place in it. It also explains why justice, science, philosophy, history etc are so important.
hicksi61 3 years ago
Perhaps the answer is that its not just a matter of function but also of balance and aesthetics. Evolutionary theory does not explain the origin of beauty and the amazing symmetry we find in most living things. Especially when that symmetry is not always necessary for proper function. The plume of the peacock may not be for the benifit of the pea hen alone especially when the plain looking sparrow is just as successful at getting his leg over.
hicksi61 3 years ago
I was hoping that I'd get you to make one responsive comment, but I was too optimistic. It seems you didn't even watch the videos, you couldn't understand them or you just forgot content. Instead you come up with one non sequitur after another.
Evolutionary medicine is understanding the body as it is, based on the path of it's evolution, with it's vestiges, its poor design as well as its great design.
Instead of refuting that, you just prefer to ignore it.
You're pathetic.
spoddie 3 years ago
The use of insults is not all that scientific and is usually a sign of one loosing ground in the debate. The fact is whether you see the design of the human as flawed or not is irelevant, medicine must deal with what is not what might have been or what was. Some of the great discoveries in medicine were made by theists and many by atheists - often working together. Tell me one medical breakthrough that relied on any theory of origins for its success.
hicksi61 3 years ago
Oh calling you pathetic is logical, I outlined exactly why and pathetic was the conclusion.
I can see you've made an attempt at a responsive reply but not surprisingly you seem to have missed the point about about a "debate". I'm not losing ground in a debate as there is none here. Simply stating an opposite view is not a debate.
Your :one medical breakthough" is mentioned in the video, along with a couple of others.
All the answers are available if you were less arrogant and listened.
spoddie 3 years ago
There is not one single medical breakthrough mentioned that relies on any particular view of origins. The reason most medical books don't talk about it as he suggests is because its irrelevant. Also the reason we stand upright is because, among other things, we are designed to do great things with our hands. Finally a few babies are born with twisted bowels because of birth trauma or mutations. Their are many possible reasons apart from design that cause back pain. Ever heard of football?
hicksi61 3 years ago
(golf clap)
After all that you finally managed to make a post that was more or less on topic and presented sort of like an argument. Unfortunately you've maintained your arrogant assertion style. Based on your demonstrated ignorance of evolution & biology that's not getting you far.
Arguing science with religious types is fruitless, all they do is assert the things they believe as they are completely unable to make a rational argument. Rational thinking is not their preserve.
spoddie 3 years ago
If you had good solid evidence and logic on your side you would not have to resort to childish pejorative comments. I have sought to respectfully put the case that the things we observe in nature can reasonable point to design especially, as I have argued, when those who vehemently seek to refute that possiblity do so with so little rational argument as our friends in this video.
hicksi61 3 years ago
Each of these men are experts and have written vast amounts on this subject. You have shown that you are completely ignorant of the subject and unable to form a coherent argument.
For example your assertion that we stand upright so we can use our hands is logically unsound - that might just be a lucky side effect of standing up to see further. Regardless of the truth of this assertion you are unable to relate it to the subject. We stand up, and we have consequences, some good, some bad.
spoddie 2 years ago
Aesthetics are imaginary.
pizzaguynumberone 3 years ago
So then are you
hicksi61 3 years ago
"I would think the same of a motor car that reached that many years without a motor replacement"
Motorcars are made in a short period of time by limited humans, and yet they still stand the test of time better than what some claim to be the creations of a perfect being with no time constraints.
It shows you the difference between sentient design and accumulative compounding - the former is more effective even when the latter has billions of years. Strong argument against divine creation
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
You will need to explain that
hicksi61 3 years ago
I thought I did. The biosphere shows many signs that it was not sentiently created, as sentiently created things are more efficient, durable and organised. In nature, genomes are mostly redundant, bodies gradually become less effective, and there is no order (it neither favours predator nor prey, as both are adapted - what a mess!)
These are signs of purely apathetic machinary (selection events discriminating on genetic programming) being responsible for its development, not sentient creation
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
How on earth are you going to know if sentiently created things are more or less efficient if as you claim nothing we observe was sentielty created. To say one thing is different to another you have to have both things at hand to make the comparison. Ie you need a control biosphere. Things are either created imperfectly or created perfectly but misused or distorted. Your view will depend on your philosophical world view and whether or not you believe in divine revelation.
hicksi61 3 years ago
"How on earth are you going to know if sentiently created things are more or less efficient if as you claim nothing we observe was sentielty created"
What are you talking about? Of course we observe sentiently creatd things - take computers for example. AS humans have progressed, and become more intelligent (i.e. more advanced in sentience), they become more efficient, durable and organised. Far mroe so, indeed, than anything in nature.
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
Your assumption is that the problem is one of design. when somthing seems not to be working well it may be down to the way is has been used or some dramatic chance that has occured since it was designed. we may be looking at something that is designed well but undergone subsequent distortion
hicksi61 2 years ago
Taken at face value, I could transfer what you have said to any disease, saying that incorrect use of the human body has led to the propulsion of deadly diseases, and that the perfect human body was indestructible and has been distorted by misuse, making it susceptible to said diseases. That makes no sense, because what can account for the survival of mankind then, if we so grossly abused our old perfect bodies that we now can blame ourselves for every single kind of human ailment.
Brenaim 2 years ago
Humans have survived partly because we are incredibly resilient, parlty because we can alter our environment and partly becuse our creator still loves us. we are not totally destroyed but distorted as is the whole universe.
hicksi61 2 years ago
Lol sorry i probably did not hist reply to your comment for my last response, but in all respects i want this discussion to go forward
Brenaim 2 years ago
You give us quite a bit of credit, and then piss on our advancement by saying that we still only survive as a species because God wills it. That's so . . . humane of you.
I am so tired of hearing you religious people say that we're broken and fallen and in need of salvation. Your God created the very circumstances necessary to enable us to fall, and allowed it to happen because of the gift of "free will?" That's some loving god you've got there.
RhunDraco 2 years ago 2
Then what can account for diseases an imperfections in animals? They have no souls and can not morally do wrong because they have no knowledge of it (according to Christianity). Then how can they misuse their bodies and therefore become prey to their own set of ailments, unless the misuse you speak of is not based on morals but function. But this then would be a logical absurdity because mankind still exists, as do all other forms of life that have not gone extinct yet
Brenaim 2 years ago
When you create beings with God like abilities like humans and give them the ability to make choices, you create something that has an enormous capacity for both good and evil. If we as a human race chose to do evil the effect will be to distort everything so that we may still see evidence of the brilliance in design but also the horror of the distortions. Sometimes we look a bit like a ferrari that's gone too many miles without a service.
hicksi61 2 years ago
Again, you completely ignore everything in the video.
One question. Does God fart? Does he ejeculate unneeded sperm or does he masturbate regularly? Will we shit in heaven? What will the lions eat? There will be lions in heaven right?
spoddie 2 years ago 5
Of course there's Lions in heaven, They will feed on the Christians! Yay
Also, we will shit but the poo will smell like flowers!
MilesB1975 2 years ago 8
Hick may not feel back pain, but if brains could feel pain, he would be in agony because his brain is obviously heavily damaged.
Or he is just that retarded.
mecher3k 3 years ago
Now there's and intellegent scientific view point. Convinces me that devoluion may also be happening.
hicksi61 3 years ago
"Devolution" is not happening, there is no such thing as that.
Everything is still evolving, like the family with nearly unbreakable bones, family with genes for overactive muscle development.
And as our knowledge base grows we do seem be have better mental acuity. Evolution has and will always be happening.
Humans just now have the advantage of controlling that, through our understanding of it and selective breeding, and even genetic engineering.
mecher3k 3 years ago
It was meant to be a joke
hicksi61 3 years ago
I think that's what God said. Didn't he?
pizzaguynumberone 3 years ago
I don't know Richard, you're almost 70 I think you and I are doing better than we would as hunter-gatherers. I'm not sure most humans lived long enough to be afflicted with so many of the troubles discussed in this video. If it wasn't a problem for so many millions of years what would be the evolutionary benefit to fixing these issues? It's as if a there's a hole in the road 70km along it, however everybody in the community lives no further than 50km on the road, so they don't repare it.
Kimbahley 3 years ago
want more
cruxbucket 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stupid video... this guy claimed i want fatty and sugary foods, my body craves salt and flesh only... fat old white men need to get real... scence = observation not factitious.. common sense law #1 everyone has different taste buds.
RealTranssexual 3 years ago
When making general statements about the human body, one must look at average people. The average person with enough to eat and no special mutations for burning absurd amounts of fat will get overweight if not forced to excercise. The foods a lot of people like for their taste (McDonald's burgers springs to mind) are fatty and basically unhealthy.
That you've convinced yourself that you only like vegetables does not change the general trend.
int3rl0per 3 years ago
so that means im not average or the general population apparently likes macdonalds? And what quotient of this poupulation matters, cause I can pretty much attest in the grand scale of thing probably less than 50% of the world likes "Mickey D's" or find it tastey.
Again 1 point to the balding white men that think they can explain everything.
BTW I eat more meat then vegetables, preferably turkey is the one I must enjoy. But Pretty much many meats, and whole grains rule my diet. 5'11" 155lbs
RealTranssexual 3 years ago
Nest I also want to propose what is the average person... I can easily argue that people are pursuaded more by society than "taste" of food when choosing a diet. For instance a kid growing up generally eating mac Donalds even tho un healthy tends to rely on it, more so than a child grown up with out it... When it comes to nture versus nuture, I think diets lean more so on the nuture, then the nature. Thus is why usually fat people reside in America, not Thailand.. Unless thai's aren't average.
RealTranssexual 3 years ago
Ps: MacDonalds burgers and fries taste very gross, a good fastfood burger that's pretty popular is wendy's I especially love the salty taste they have, well mine does anyways, I don't know about everyone elses. Nor should I. And for Fries I prefer Checkers.. but I ususally don't eat fries.. or get combos, as soda is disgusting.. water and tea taste better to me as they are actual fluids, not a bunch of sugar bubbles that foam in ur mouth, before turning into dyed gross tasting water.
RealTranssexual 3 years ago
The point was that given a sample of random people, the majority of them would (taste-wise) prefer food high in fats, salts or sugars - the "tasty stuff". This gets problematic when most of our foods are relatively high in salts, sugars and/or fats (since it sells, because people like it), and there's an abundant supply of it. Most people 150 years ago wouldn't have had access to the amount of "tasty" food the average american has today.
int3rl0per 3 years ago
SO basically your saying, If go to Japan, with a Mac Donald's hamburger and fed it to kids they are going to like it, cause within 150 years the minds of humans evolved to like fatty/tasty foods (which one can argue that all tasty foods aren't full of sugar or fats)?
Does enviroment not account for anything, or upbringing? I mean honestly, It's like telling me im a mutant cause fatty sugary foods don't please me. What does salt have anything to do with fats? Sugars become fat atleast...
RealTranssexual 3 years ago
That and you know salt is kind of like a high necessity in people's diet. Sugar is not really... so i don't even see why compare the 2... if anyone asked me i prefer salty over sweet any day. Chips > nasty old cake.. anyways I see it as asinine as generalizing the world to liking something, there's no way to know what the average human likes, this study was based off a small populous that probably grew up in the same type of cultural fashion to produce results favorable to this bee ess.
RealTranssexual 3 years ago
Instead of having this one guy in galsses tell you that all people like sugar, lets try to recognize that as a whole, most people may not like sugars as much as those people from these "modern societies" might. And that people are generally different then eachother, assuming someone likes sugar cause a lil survery suggests that an upper limit of 75% of the people like sugar is asinine, just as much assuming everyone is a heterosexual, or enjoys videogames.
RealTranssexual 3 years ago
I live in Japan and I have 3 MacDonalds within 100meters of my home. In one place in Tokyo I know, you can see 5 MacDonalds.
These men are speaking in general terms, and yes humans do like salt, fat and sugar. And in general terms humans are hetrosexual.
These men are aware of the exceptions and they know full well that the exceptions are just as important as the general trends.
spoddie 2 years ago 6
Japan...........awesome ^^
MrMetal616 2 years ago
This whole interview should be shown in any jr high/high school/ college science classes. Brillant.
Bigturns33 3 years ago 2
Completely agreed. 100%
AtheistBrad 3 years ago
good tasting foods are healthy...ie. mangos, strawberries, plums, apples, oranges, or in short FRUITS!
hash1212 3 years ago
Not so much the domesticated fruits humans eat. Alot of perservatives and chemicals are added.
AtheistBrad 3 years ago
In our evolutionary past fruits you mentioned were not abundantly available all the time to all populations.
siyengar9821 3 years ago
Oh really? Sure forget the fact the only reason why they in such high supply is because of humans learning how to grow them easily.
They would of been quite rare before, especially since other animals would eat them.
mecher3k 3 years ago
not really .. hunter gatherer societies have managed to survive and get the right nutrition just fine. berries, meat, etc. all depends on ones environment. furthermore farmer societies even to this day live just fine by growing their own foods
hash1212 3 years ago
hopefully humans will evolve around our own downfall
nathanomgnathan 3 years ago
Yore rong?
2007regis 3 years ago
No, it wasn't me , Lerch.
pizzaguynumberone 3 years ago
Interesting...
Katalyzt 3 years ago
I wouldn't be so extreme as to say our modern life is killing us. From what I've heard Dawkins and others say before, our modern lifestyle has greatly extended our lifespan.
More apt to say that our modern conveniences which SHOULD be extending our lives tempt too many gluttonous motherfuckers who have too little self control and can't stop shoving shit in their mouths.
dannypantsgm 3 years ago
"Stop shoving shit in their mouths"
We're all the descendants of the fat asses who had enough fat stored up to survive the numerous famines we've encountered as a species.
RexFordVII 3 years ago
What a cracking face from Dawkins in that last shot! Brilliant
tommyk77 3 years ago