A conversation with Richard Dawkins (10/12)

[Ikorose11]

00:50 she calls him professor Hawkings lolol

[quuanttum]

...its possible...i like to think about all possibilities no matter how stupid it seems!

[quuanttum]

lets look at some evidence... there is only one thing which we have evidence for that can create a world. its called our mind and when we go to sleep we create a whole world. we dream it. its real. its possible the universe is such a construct. maybe its the mind of God. maybe.

[bud3dharma]

ROFL at 1:30.... are you for real?

[darkmiles22]

I love how Dawkins connected the argument from improbability on Evolution to God and showed how it really should apply only in the latter case. Bloody brilliant!

[HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

me too! great!

[QuestionMarc]

The answer Dawkins gave to the Asian girl at the beginning I think is inadequate. Genes are the recipe for our construction. Genes are passed down via sperm and egg which each carry half of the recipe, when they meet, they now can begin building a human from the embryo stage on up. Sperm have short life spans and are produced frequently, but eggs are stored up and released slowly over time and so may be older, but suffer no effects of aging on the genes carried.

[Octamed]

Actually I've heard they do suffer with age. As in, not the individual sperm cells, but the dna which is copied into those cells (which degrades with age... maybe ;) )

[QuestionMarc]

I've actually now heard something to that effect as well, but it seems the sperm degrades at roughly the same age as the male body. For the most part, as long as the male can still perform, the sperm can probably too. The body of the sperm cell can weaken and more deficient sperm are created in elderly men, but the genetic code they carry is no worse for wear.

[rouey]

Yes, I noticed that too. The problem there was that Dawkins couldn't understand the question and was further misled by the analogy with Dolly.

[scarecrow7236]

Oh yeh she also says:

"There is not a single SHRED of evidence that Dawkins even ATTEMPTED to employ anything remotely resembling "The Scientific Method" in fabricating his own personal biased CONCLUSIONS!

In fact, his book, "The God Delusion" is so poorly reasoned, that it's been nicknamed, "The Dawkins Delusion!" I don't even know any atheists who agree with the nonsense in that book!"

True or is she lying?

[ormyskeptyc]

She's lying!! The Dawkins Delusion is a book written by religious people. It's not a nickname. I, personally, agree with the 'nonsense' in the God Delusion. It was even introduced to me by a person who described it as their 'bible' (Not something I subscribe to myself) - this should give you some idea how most rational thinkers' revere the book. Was she drunk when she put this argument forward?

[greggcaff]

it is far from nonsense, its a real attempt from a scientific and philosophical point of view and those that dismiss it discredit themselves because they offer no proof to the contrary.

[KaroKoenich]

@scarecrow7236 Your friend is lying. Well, maybe not deliberately. She probably just blindly repeated some IDiot urban myths.

[scarecrow7236]

I'm arguing with a theist, and she says this about richard:

"REAL scientists are PISSED off that he actually has the audacity to try to pretend that there's anything "scientific" about his so-called "theories" -- whatsoever!!"

And:

"Most atheists I know have completely disassociated themselves from his insanity, and now regard him as no different from any other illogical religious fanatic! He has lost the respect of his OWN community!"

Is this true?

[d4m4s74]

Lately it's often said it's not a universe but a multiverse

what if in another universe a civilization got so advanced it could create a "pet universe" of it's own, let's call it play for god, wouldn't that be the way to understand religion with science?

(please note, I'm an atheist and this is just random brainfarts)

[riseofatheism]

So a lot like Men In Black near the end with the aliens playing with the galaxies marbles. I like it. I would love if something like that were true.

[tubajedimaster]

pause at 2:16.....fucking scary light reflection.

[LeLimeLine]

MAYBE IT WUZ GAWD.

O.O

[DanRaccoon]

Or Darwin >.>

[hpholland]

LMAO crazy

[tubbychubby1]

very interesting lecture, but found his answer on why we r here very dissappointing and a bit patronising. its a silly question is not a valid answer, if he admitided he had no idea i wud have respected his reply

[ashleylovesdaddy]

He only meant that to ask a "Why" question implies intent from a designer. "How" is the proper question.

[SupermarketsRevil]

The question made no sense. The reasons "why humans are here" is because we have been successful as a species in propagating our existence. To look for a deeper meaning is stupid - as Dawkins points out - why are mountains there? ---they simply are, why do you expect there to be a reason why other than by natural forces

[Anab10sis]

Dawkins is very fond many of Bertrand Russell's arguments - the celestial teapot especially. I guess he wasn't that confident in his own grasp of philosophy (being himself concerned with Biology - he's often quite modest about his own understanding of other disciplines even in science) to speak expertly on the subject.

[anthonzi]

3:40 I think it would be better to say that the meme of god is dying.

[Devilsnightforlife]

Did the chinese lady just call him professor hawkins? Trouble pronouncing the D or she thought he was stephen hawkins?

[mdiem]

Simple mistake. She sounded nervous.

[LeLimeLine]

That's okay, she's damn cute.

[SpeciousGwa]

Aye she was, I'd propagate my DNA with her anytime.

[megamarsvin]

Hmm the Chinese lady had one of the most interesting questions of the entire night but sadly the answer felt a little unsatisfying.

[t0pmen]

I agree.

[markgg1]

hmmm, i must disagree - this is just a really basic question about reprodcution, and no offence to this woman but its quite silly.

A tiny bit of understanding of reproduction would answer it quickly

[megamarsvin]

Then I'd love to hear you explain it. :)

[markgg1]

where do i start?

DNA is the information for making humans and is passed down via sperm and egg .The DNA in our body doesnt change over time, so when we create an egg using the DNA the age of the person creating the sperm or egg will have no impact on the information trapped within the egg cells

Am I missing something here as what im explaining is such basic biology as far as I know.

Is this an ok explanation or would u like more?

[t0pmen]

The DNA in our bodies does change via telomere length. I think the first questions is: how do reproductive cells set their telomere ends to 'zero'?

More importantly, what are the ages of genes, and does it matter? Probably not, but I'd have loved to hear Dr. Dawkin's answer.

[markgg1]

I dont know the specific biochemistry but there would be no survival advantage of producing an old cell for reproduction, so would be phazed out be evolution

I could guess and say that Mitosis shortens the telemeres, but in meiosis there is a mechanism which 'resets' the clock...

Im sure an expert coulf give you a simple answer to this

I just dont think its a good question as it would make no sense for evolution to adapt a proces of creating old genes for reproduction

[markgg1]

also, the actual information encoded in the DNA does not change, except for accidental mutations. Saying the telemeres shorten is not really 'changing' the DNA, as the telemeres dont code for any proteins

[faraz1729]

What a brilliantly phrased answer about chance and randomness in evolution. It's refreshing to hear eloquence and intelligence like this.

[mdiem]

Any hypothesis about a complex system residing outside the universe that could create the universe always raises the question: "well then, what created it?" - and to say that it isn't physical and thus doesn't have the constraints of probability on it... you're right, the imagination is limitless and such things are not real and cannot create a universe.

[Intraquarkic]

An entity outside the universe wouldn't have physical traits, such as simplicity or complexity, maleness or femaleness, it would be immaterial, beyond comprehension, and hence meaningless to discuss

[GeistWerk]

so why should we believe in it?

if there is something that cant be understood, religion cant understand it either.

[13248396]

the last one was pretty good. you cant have a not antropomorphic god and a antropomorphic god same time lol.

[dustbust3r]

oh I spoke too soon

[dustbust3r]

Ya know what, it is possible something that created the universe is impossibly complex if it exists outside of the universe. So long as you admit that that entity is what represents some dimensional bundle or something. For all I care, yes, it is an entity that created the universe, but that entity is NOT God, that entity did not write the bible or have ANYTHING to do with it.

How's that sound?

[silvercade]

It sounds like unfounded ideas being plucked out of a lottery bin.

[egdeltur666]

It was Azathoth all along, eh?

LOVECRAFT KNEW!!!

[287karakoli]

I admire Dawkins' patience when answering some admittedly dumb questions...

[mg19930]

Sounded like he was getting the arse to me.

[Enlan86]

Tangent?

[eggory]

I think what the last question was about, was whether probability or any physical laws or logical rules should be applied if we were to assume or entertain the possibility that god exists. That is to say, whether they apply to god. It seems nonsensicle, but there are certain things like that i'm not sure most atheists understand about dealing with the concept of the possibility of god. I dunno though i haven't thought that much about this

[egdeltur666]

I don't think Dawkins got it either. What he really wanted to know is is it impossible for an entity outside our universe to have sparked the creation of it. In that situation, the entity can be as complex as it wants to because we have no way of even theoretically postulating just the dimensions objects occupy in hyperspace... let alone what they are made of. The answer holds up though, because that entity (Azathoth or Yog-Sothoth) does NOT represent a god from religion that answers prayers.

[Hektor88]

did she REALLY ask that if two 25 year olds have a baby, that the baby will be born 25 years old? I think they must have misunderstood the question.

[SeattleDane]

She was asking why two 25 year olds can combine 25-year old egg and sperm to create a zero-year old fertilized cell. The cellular material is "old", so why is the cell considered "new"?

Answer:

In truth the sperm is a few days old; only the egg is 25 years old. But the fertilized egg immediately begins growing using new materials and then dividing, creating zero year old cells. So the fertilized egg is 25 years old, but all new cells that develop are zero years old.

[Hektor88]

ah, there you go. Thx

[mdgreg]

@SeattleDane , Would you Say -9 Months Old?

[firesteel1]

I thought it was a good question, embarassing though

[doggeds]

Did she say "hi professor Hawkins? LOL

[IkkakuDaKiller]

lol yea, she actually did ^^

[eduzitcho]

i heard that too ROFL

[KenshinSephiroth666]

02:16

AAAARRGHHH!!!

[chris7777777777777]

Where is he? in Scotland?

[abortedsoul]

I feel incredibly pompous to say this (but a bit thrilled as well) but it seems honest to me that I could have, on the spot, answered many of these questions more effectively and more scientifically then the awesome-tastical, phenomenally brilliant and scientific Dr. Dawkins. Admittedly, it did seem like Richard was sick.

[Mjhavok]

Your attitude towards scientists isn't my concern. As long as you appreciate the method.

[Domzdream]

Scottish people. Ha ha. Nobody understands them. Oche aye!

[Mjhavok]

I am a large consumer of a big bookshop called Amazon. I don't castigate the internet. I only castigated (your word not mine) people who want explanation of scientific concepts in 500 character comment boxes. Try Wikipeida, it surprisingly has high fidelity. As for others, they are welcome not to follow any advice I give.

[lianghaochen]

that chinese girl embrasses me......

[syrett76]

why? Is she your daughter?

[lianghaochen]

it's just a stupid question, she obviously haven't heard of RNA

[Mjhavok]

I will do whatever I feel like thank you.

[irichc]

There's no rational link between activity and extension. Thus, Dawkins assumption on the simple God not being able to be like the Christian God is ludicrous.

[axa905]

But that's just it isn't it? This argument is so simple and rational that even a child should understand. If you prove or assume that God is as simple as a quantum fluctuation then the God you are talking about in Christianity is none sense! The God Christianity speaks off is an infinitely complicated entity which by the creationist rational is improbable to have existed. Prof Hawkins puts it very eloquently that the start of the universe has to be simple. Just rewind the video...

[Mjhavok]

Try reading a book then. Even easier do an interest search. Must you get your information spoon fed to you in 500 character comments on YouTube?

[Mjhavok]

EDIT:Interest=internet.

[dp2500]

I like how the girl called him Hawkings

[ObbiQuiet]

I am very impressed by that Christian youth leader. Good for him.

[Saddamuel]

The Christian youth worker was a very impressive young man. Shame all religious people can't be like him.

[Mjhavok]

There are many factors.

[Mjhavok]

Your age isn't a measurement of when the egg was fertilised. It is a measurement from your birth date.

[120casst]

The host is a real balloon!!

[BoozyBeggar]

Oh my god. What has this world come to? The woman at 1:47. This is the kind of superstition you get without proper education.

[YawnGod]

Are you serious?

While the questioner was kind of naive, and I am dissapointed in Dawkins for not giving as good as an answer as one I could give myself, the question itself wasn't too bad. It was bad, but not too bad. Kind of like asking "Why aren't there green stars?" when the answer is that stars give off all types of different lights, including green, we just don't percieve them as green.

[YawnGod]

Dawkins should have answered by saying, "Sperm cells are being created constantly, so they're always young, and a woman's eggs are formed in the fetus and are kept in stasis in the ovaries until once a month they're activated via hormones and lasts until it is expelled from the body...as you probably well know."

[ericv00]

I think the question is MUCH deeper than she is given credit for. Our genes gradually but definitely become more decrepit over time. This happens every time our cells divide. Consequently, there is a limit to our lifespan. But a baby doesn't inherit the decrepitude of the parents genes. Keep in mind, gametes are created from our cells too. How is the decrepitude of genetic material reset in a baby?

Science DOES answer this, but the question is legitimate for one who does not...

[ericv00]

...know genetics deeply.

There are several genes that need to be expressed that forms a baby from one cell. Later, these genes become "folded over" in a way that they can not be expressed. The genes that ARE expressed, or rather, the limitations of genetic material available causes the specialization of cells for an intended purpose(the different organs). More "folds" make the different cells within the organs...

[ericv00]

...Without this process of decrepitude. The final form of a human would not happen.

All that needs to happen to reverse this degrading is for the whole of the genetic code to become available for expression again. Gametes are not the only time this happens. Some cancers are the result of a partial reversal of genetic degrading. "Young" cells are not always a good thing...

[ericv00]

...I can't remember for sure what the mechanism is for making the whole genetic code expressible again. But it is not a complicated explanation.

[YawnGod]

Well, if I am not mistaken, the egg cells do not divide until fecundation, so that's half the problem resolved.

And aren't the sperm cells formed from some type of stem cell? I mean, it's no totipotent cell but it's still a type of stem cell, isn't it? Wouldn't this explain the lack of (major) accumulating decrepitude over the years in sperm cells?

[ericv00]

You are a little mistaken. Egg cells divide while the woman is still a fetus. Then they go into a kind of stasis. Egg cells are not created after birth. Only a few cells become activated during the time of fertility each month. But the effect you infer is the same.

Yes sperm cells are formed from a type of stem cell. But it is a distinctive type that has some amount of limit to its gene expression. While little decrepitude occurs, there is still enough to need to reverse the effect.

[YawnGod]

Well, obviously the stem cells that made the eggs underwent meiosis to become egg cells. I suppose what I meant was that once the egg cells are formed there is no more division of those cells, which is unlike the formation of spermatazoids, where there is always constant division and creation of new cells.

[ericv00]

Ah. Yes. I did understood what your point was.  I'm just particular about details sometimes.

I still need to research and remind myself what the reset mechanism is. I know it can be induced by starving a cell just short of killing it, but.... arg! I can't remember. This is bugging me.

[LovelyYTRocks]

What the fuck kind of question is "sperm cell & egg cell"?

Go ask your Science professor.

[calumlittle]

she said "hi professor hawkins" lol hawking? dawking? dawkins idiot. sh wanted to know why babies who are born from adults are not adult, lol, i thought eggs and sperm were pretty dormant so they dont age so much. ive taken soo many drugs my sperm are fifty, by her logic my kids would die of old age at twenty. hawkins, lol, my girl is chinese too, so i am being racist, justifiably

[LovelyYTRocks]

Lol.

Don't make fun of her.

Even though I am Chinese, I find it funny.

"If I'm an adult, why isn't my baby an adult?"

Shit, your sperm cells keeps dividing, and they are haploids. You can't fucking squirt a 50-year-old out your penis.

[MrFacet]

Look up above, she might have been confused with cloning problems with telomeres.

[LovelyYTRocks]

Lol.

Don't make fun of her.

Even though I am Chinese, I find it funny.

"If I'm an adult, why isn't my baby an adult?"

Shit, your sperm cells keeps dividing, and they are haploids. You can't fucking squirt a 50-year-old out your penis.

[calumlittle]

Thanks buddy, haploid is right enough, maby that girls mum and dad are in thier seventies now. That philosophy student had no excuse tho, what an idiot. Karl Plkington would have asked a more relevant question

[calumlittle]

there is a k in dawkins

[MrFacet]

I thought I heard her say 'Hawkins'. She would not be the first one to mix Dawkins with Stephen Hawking's name.

[calumlittle]

youth worker got pwned. christian idiots, dawins was like an intellectual lion

[Mjhavok]

What was that Asian girls question all about?

[MrFacet]

Apparently when you start life naturally, somehow the chromosomes have a built in number of times they can be copied, as in ->mitosis a fragment of the end (->telomere) gets lost. Clones, starting from shorter chromosomes from (copied) body cells, have less fragments left at the end to copy into a full health animal.

That's the "age" of chromsomes.

Nothing to do with the age of genes in normal 25 year olds.

[Mjhavok]

Sex cells or gametes go through a different type of division called meiosis. In mitosis (normal cell division) after each division the telomeres of your chromosomes get shorter.

[mikezephyr]

hey dr.dick read some more philosophy lol

guys don't kill me, i know it's like insulting the pope in 1567

[Mjhavok]

"How many philosophers does it take to get Man to the Moon? None, because you can't talk your way there."

[mikezephyr]

ya fuk the planet, and the 200 species dying daily because of civilization! go moon! there's new worlds to have

[BoozyBeggar]

Mjhavok That quote is full of W I N !!!

[Mjhavok]

Yep. It is brimming over with WIN. A sure antidote to all the fail on YouTube.

[AtheistCitizen]

wow the final answer was great. especially considering how well he clearly feels..

[AtheistCitizen]

low contact with philosophers was indeed the answer to the guy's question..

[GeeWeezzz]

I must say I am a bit disappointed at Dawkins' ignorance about Nietzsche. It is common knowledge that the God of "God is dead" is the idol, the idea of God, not the actual God. Nietzsche would have noticed the absurdity of such a statement. It's a shame that a man like Dawkins should learn this at his age and from a young student.

[Gplex]

Yes because he study biology he should know all of the "gods".

[GeeWeezzz]

What a vapid, ignorant response.

Because he is an educated man, he should know some basics about philosophy, which I'm sure he does, but his statement "I never understood that quote, why is it 'God is not dead' and not 'God never existed'" revealed a degree on ignorance on a subject that I'm not accustomed to. Like I said, this is basic philosophical if not literary knowledge. You don't even need to have read Nietzsche to know that quote and understand what it means.

[GeeWeezzz]

Funny that I should get three thumbs down. Are any of you critical thinkers or are you just binary machines: appraisal of Dawkins or bashing of religious idiots, thumbs up / criticism of Dawkins, thumbs down? Talk about sectarianism. Do you value his ideas or do you worship his person? Can you get any closer to a religious mentality? Sad, sad, sad.

[raguv2000]

Well, he said he isn't that familiar with philosophy? Isn't that enough?

[GeeWeezzz]

Yeah, why don't you miss the point, like the others. Like mikezephyr said below, criticising Dawkins is like insulting the Pope in 1567.

The worst that could possibly happen, has happened. Someone criticises dogmaticism and superstion, and people have come to worship him. Sheep.

[MrFacet]

You are showing signs of bias here. You see someone whose ideas apparently you do not share, and he is admitting that there is something he has not studied. In reaction to a question from the audience. Not only do you blame him for this lack of knowledge, but you also have negative feelings against people defending him. Why not just accept that Dawkins is not a homo universalis.

[GeeWeezzz]

MrFacet: thank you for proving my point. There is absolutely nothing in what I've written that indicates I don't share Dawkins' ideas. I was right about "praise him or be against him". I don't blame him for a lack of basic knowledge, and he made it worse by making a cute remark about it, I was disappointed. I have negative feelings against people missing the point and seeing any criticism as a threat. It's not the first time that I've observed this dogmatic, religious attitude. Very worrying.

[raguv2000]

Well, whoever thumbed down you is stupid.

[Gplex]

Who said anything about worship! These a reason my "ignorant" response got 7 thumbs up and yours got 8 down.

You basicly say because you are educated, you should know about philosopy?!?! Can you not see your own ignorance.

Why would someone who study biology, need to study philosophy, so geeWeezz wake up and dont assume people should have to learn everything because they are "educated".

[GeeWeezzz]

Gplex:

"Who said anything about worship!"

I did. Once again, a little remark is seen as a threat. You're with Dawkins or against him, all the way. No one must criticise him.

"These a reason my "ignorant" response got 7 thumbs up and yours got 8 down."

Yes that means you must be right, seeing that everyone who's written a response has missed the point.

"because you are educated, you should know about philosopy?!?!"

At least some basics, yeah. And literature, and history, etc.

[MrFacet]

Geeweezz, sensible criticism is welcome. The way you react on the Nietsche response is not sensible and provoking, hence the reactions. Compare the way people respond to ProfMTH and VenomFangX.

[raguv2000]

You seem to be treating people in the same way you claim others are treating you.

In other words, everyone who thinks that Dawkins not fully understanding "God is dead" is not a big deal is a fanboy, while everyone who agrees with you is an ardent freethinker.

You were disappointed that your expectations of this man were not met. While some people may have acted like fanboys by giving you a thumb down, others may not have had as high expectations of him as you had.

[Gplex]

What?!?! If you had read my comment properly, you would have understood that I was responding to someone who had unreasonably high expectations, go reply to him/her not me.

[raguv2000]

I did, or I thought I did.

[Gplex]

soz, my bad, I though I click on the wrong person, yt has some weird comment system...

[GeeWeezzz]

I would be disappointed in ANY educated man not knowing what Nietzsche's "God is dead" means. Stop overanalysing.

[ikanaide]

The dialect of these people are distracting.

[Aon0]

Your grammar 'are' distracting too.

[ikanaide]

did i hurt your feelings mate?

[GeeWeezzz]

They speak with a Scottish accent.

[ScottishAtheist]

Aye. :D

[ScottishAtheist]

Actually the Inverness accent is quite nice on the ear.

[Dem212]

The argument he used against the last question is so great.  It really shows just how thin the line is for some theists.

[TawntheAtheist]

yes, the response from the questioner was very weak.