@Impaler1815 If that's the bottomline of your argument it is hilarious.
The very BASIC presupposition when discussing God is His ETERNAL NATURE. Not infinite, which implies a beginning, but eternal - no beginning, no end. God always has been, always is and always will be.
Hard to grasp with your superficial scientific mind?
@Impaler1815 Everything within our material existence does, yes. That's the cause-effect rule, the very foundation of any scientific experiment, of any conversation, of any action. Any action has a result, and any action is a result of a previous action.
But you equate God, a SUPERnatural deity (=non material, transcendant) to material objects. A crucial and very basic mistake.
Your point isn't reinforced, it is refuted by logical analysis.
@SmokiSounds Claiming God's supernatural doesn't change anything. He still has all the attributes of material objects you claim require a creator: Existence and complexity. If God can exist forever, so can energy. The first cause argument never addresses that.
This video uses the fraudulent "Me thinks it is a weasel" B.S. When are people going to realize there IS NO TARGET in random gene mutations. Geez. And of course anybody can say gene duplication duplicates genes, but that doesn't explain how it happens and survives natural selection. Come on.
Richard Dawkins actually gave his response to the "stumped video" on his website where he didn't give an actual answer there either. It's all covered in this video:
There was no target for the mutations in the weasel program either. Just like in real life the mutations were random. Also, just like in real life, the selection wasn't.
"but that doesn't explain how it happens"
Is that relevant? Are you denying gene duplication happens?
"survives natural selection."
Are you saying there's something about gene duplication that means it shouldn't survive natural selection?
@Impaler1815 Don't tell me I haven't thought things through. There most certainly is a target in Dawkin's "Methinks it is like a weasel" example. Anytime his random mutation gets the correct letter it magically knows it, locks into place, nd doesn't change from that point on. It's a totally bogus example. Anybody with any knowledge of math knows that it would take an average of 28 raised to the 27th power to randomly stumble upon that combination with random mutations.
@Elhardt Yes, Dawkins explained the probabilities of getting that result through random chance in the book. When a letter randomly changes to the right one it gets selected. That's how natural selection works. Also, in the program all the letters are subject to mutation, even the ones that have already been selected for. Either you don't know how evolution works, or you haven't thought this through. Probably both.
@Impaler1815 As for gene duplication, I'm pointing out the meaningless talk in relation to that. Dawkins couldn't give and example, so yes that matters in relation to this video. A duplicate gene doesn't do anything new and thus shouldn't survive natural selection, if we're to follow the theory we're taught. The point is, Dawkins was stumped and couldn't give any clear example. Humans have about the same number of genes as other animals, even flies, so number of genes doesn't mean much.
@Elhardt Dawkins explained a common, well observed process. It's as necessary to give an example of gene duplication as it is to give one of gravity. I gave an example in the description of this video, which was also selected for. Like I said, do you deny gene duplication occurs?
If a duplicated gene doesn't do anything doesn't that make it neutral? Meaning there won't be any selection for or against it? Didn't think this through.
Yes, other animals have large genomes too, what's your point?
@Elhardt Dawkins didn't give an example, and considering he knew examples the only logical conclusion is that there was another reason for him pausing. Consider as well that the creationists won't release any of the footage from between cuts that they say exists, and that they claim proves their point. What are they hiding?
the old "scientific community doesn't accept the flood geologists" crap. just because many evolutionists reject it says more about their stupidity and zeal than it does about bad science. after all, these idiots are the ones who believe that something came from nothing, the whole universe fell into place in perfect order and that dinos magically transformed into birds. evolutionist stupidity should not be held up as evidence against the flood.
I suggest you spend some time looking into the evolutionary skeletal evidence for both the horse which is almost complete and the whale which has an excellent transitional display. You can't spout creationist nonsense when there is actually evidence out there. Your brainwashing won't allow you to accept the truth. Don't worry you can overcome it. The big bang and evolution are completely separate scientific fields. However there is concrete evidence for both hypotheses. Just google it!
Dawkins appearing to be "stumped" by this question is now a central part of Creationist folklore when all it shows is the bankruptcy of Creationism as science.
Anybody who has actually read Dawkins, knows that his actually being "stumped" by this question is about as likely as Stephen Hawking being stumped by a question of high-school algebra.
Creationists don't bother to read his work yet criticize it anyway... they watch videos and draw conclusions from a what someone does not say.
He's not stumped he's just thinking about how to answer the question properly and thoroughly. It pisses me off how people are saying "Ooooh he doesn't know all the answers!", which obviously no one does, but you see him question all those creationists and stuff and almost every question they are asked they can't answer. They're like politicians, never ever giving a straight answer and always going in circles.
Well the most obvious example is bacteria which adapt to surive drugs, hence why we have to develop our medicinal drugs and there is all talk of things such as the superbug..
hope this blindly obvious example was helpful for you :)
@rjisreal The 'theory' of evolution is used to develop drugs against resistant bacteria. They anticipate and design drugs around the bacterium's natural selection process and can then create a treatment that circumvents the natural evolution.
Let's hope you or your children don't require the use of these groundbreaking drugs but if you do, remember that it's the work of those who don't swallow stone age myths that save your lives.
@noiseache uhh...i dont have children lol, im a teenager. and 2. what you are talking about isnt evolution at all...the bacteria is still the same bacteria as it was before except now it resists the drugs. thats called adaption, not evolution...no matter how many times an animal adapts, it wont become another animal. A fish wont become a dog, a cat wont become an elephant, etc.
@rjisreal I'm afraid this comment shows your level of misunderstanding about the theory you love to pour derision on. Your other one about ToE having zero evidence despite it being the grand unifying theory of the entire field of biology is equally vacuous. "no matter how many times an animal adapts, it wont become another animal" - so how do you account for the fact that DNA, molecular biological - right up to skeletal evidence & everything in between points to the contrary? Keep up the denial!
@noiseache no it doesnt. and nothing "points to the contrary" ... if this evolution happened, we would have in-between skeletons and do we? no. there isnt even a scrap of evidence that the big bang / evolution happened. and even if it did happen, God made it happen
@rjisreal However, your best evidence is the geographical distribution of species and the convergent evolution seen in them. Predators and prey - marsupials and mammals on separate continents evolving similar body shapes and behaviour given the environment, predation and diet variables despite them being completely removed genetically. This proves evolution without a doubt, the molecular and fossil evidence only hammers it home with more force. Creationists are in an ever decreasing corner.
@noiseache how does that prove evolution true? thats like saying "Hey I'm telling you a lie, so it must be true." Whats the probability that two different types of animal that has never even been within miles of eachother would be so similar? It is such a low probability that science would consider it impossible.
@rjisreal Because it demonstrates unequivocally that evolution takes place and that bio systems work towards a similar level of development despite their separation. OK granted I shouldn't use the word prove, that's solely for maths but you cannot deny the pathway. I'm not sure what you mean by the last statement. This is the crux of the misunderstanding with evolution, it is a very simple hypothesis and the steps needed to go from one to another are in fact relatively small-not infinitesimal.
@noiseache ok, but why, then, do scientists believe that life in other planets will be so different? If life all develops the same way, why do we have plants? Bacteria? Fish? People? They all are completely different. And we have not come across any example of an in-between animal crossing over through evolution into a different species.
@rjisreal Because of the environment. There may be 100k planets out there that support life but the chances of them having the exact chemical make up of earth ARE very improbable. Life develops in convergence HERE, because the environment is similar. Grass in Australia is pretty much the same as Grass in Norway, animals evolve to eat it and then other animals prey on those animals. - Last Comment: If you mean has anyone SEEN it happen, well no as it takes hundreds of thousands of years!
@rjisreal There have been plenty of observed instances of speciation including flies, beetles, worms, grasshoppers but mostly across the realm of plant, virus and bacteria since testing on these does not involve long lifespans where maturity needs to be reached before breeding, potential mutation etc. I would go and look up some of the scientific papers and start to digest what people have actually discovered and then falsify if you feel you have the ammunition to do so.
@rjisreal Learning and understanding about this stuff is what will make the difference between inventing supernatural, metaphysical nonsense for what we see in the world and accepting what actually happened. Science may not have nailed the exact details on every issue but you cannot deny that the pathway can be clearly demonstrated - and of course easily falsified if you feel you can. The attempts to show evolution to be false have only made it stronger!
@rjisreal This is one of the fundamental problems in the world today. People are in love with their fairy tales so much that they ignore plain and simple truth in favour of said mythology. That mythology also depends on the geographic location of your birth and nothing to do with any 'true word of god'. American probably Christian, Indian - Hindu, Indonesian-Muslim etc...
One day mankind will shake off superstitious claptrap and hocum. I for one hope this day comes sooner rather than later.
@noiseache obviously, nobody is reading my last two comments so I will say it a third time...I am not saying whether evolution/big bang happened or not...if it somehow did happen, it was by the hand of God...so im not trying to disprove your little "truth"
There are reams of evidence that i have listed too many times to count at this inane assertion.
Whenever i list some of them for people making this accusation they tend to disappear only to return at a later date and level the same idiot accusation that there is none!
Here's just one tiny example.
DNA sequencing and how it relates to nested hierarchies.
@seansalvador1 im sorry i dont know what youre talking about as im still in high school...but honestly, evolution makes no sense and defies logic and science. and since science seems to be the god of atheists, you are defying your own 'religion'
@rjisreal Science defined evolution. The same scientific methods to produce hypotheses and models were and are used on ToE. It holds up brilliantly and more importantly you can use ToE to predict things which is the true mark of a good scientific model. Moreover, Evolution is easily falsified. You just need to show a fossil out of it's geological strata and bang, you'll be the most famous person in the world. Despite years of trying, no one has been able to falsify the theory.
I think that as a high school student you should really think about studying it before you make such a bold statement as "[evolution] defies logic and science".
Take it from me as a person who has studied it, it does not defy logic and IS science.
Science is not a religion such as Christianity, by definition. If i follow a football club religiously then that does not mean that football isa religion, there are more than one definitions to most words and you are mixing definitions.
@rjisreal There are reams of evidence that i have listed too many times to count.
Whenever i list some of them for people making accusations of no evidence etc. they tend to disappear only to return at a later date and level the same idiot accusation that there is none!
Here's just one tiny example.
DNA sequencing and how it relates to nested hierarchies.
You could say that about literally anything, and i could attribute it to pirates or the flying spaghetti monster so it hardly moves the discussion on!
The fact remains that there is no evidence of this omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent super being. Weird eh?
If he interacts with thte universe then he can be tested. There still remains no evidence.
@seansalvador1 there is evidence...just look at the great flood of Noah's Ark. In almost any city or location you may visit, they will tell you that at one point in time, it was a great lake covering all the land...that would be silly that everywhere was a great lake, that would mean that the entire world was a great lake. The only explaination is that the story is real and that God really did flood the earth.
Cities are always built next to rivers (fresh water supply) and are therefore susceptible to flooding, to claim that because many cities have been flooded then there must therefore have been a global flood is not only an idiotic non sequitur, it is also against all geological evidence to the contrary!
The story of Noah was ripped off, almost word for word, from earlier myths such as the tale of Utanapistim in the Epic of Gilgemesh.
It is also self contradictory (2 of each animal or 7?)
@seansalvador1 i have never heard of seven of each animal in the flood. the gillgamesh thing was written first, but remember that the Bible was put together way after many of the things happened. so maybe gilgamesh's story is just another copy of the same story and its not ripped, its just transferred. And how is my claim idiotic? how is it against geological evidence? why did you use latin when we are supposed to be speaking english? Why do people keep talking to me? Im sick of notifications
It's right there in the bible (GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female).
It contradicts itself on this in GEN 7:8 and GEN 7:9 where it says pairs.
"maybe gilgamesh's [isn't copy]"
Well it has different names and was written before the bible says the earth began!
@rjisreal "how is it against geological evidence?"
I'm not about to go into great detail, in short there's no evidence for a global flood and there would be. There would be plenty. There are many inconsistencies also, like the fact that animals like Whales would also be killed in a global flood (food supplies would die due to different salinities) and the fact that there is not that much water even if you melted the icecaps.
@rjisreal "why did you use Latin when we are supposed to be speaking English?"
The latin 'non sequitur' is a very well known logical fallacy and is used in everyday English. It means "it does not follow." It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements.
I wasn't trying to confuse you.
"Why do people keep talking to me?"
Because you replied. If you are sick of them then don't reply...
There are also many other reasons why a global flood is absurd.
@rjisreal In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists (Isaak, M (1998). "Problems with a Global Flood")
The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities.
You are talking about something which you cannot test or reproduce, in fact the words
" Must have happened " are quoted in your video. That sounds more like an inference or deduction than a fact. The truth is that you need to accept the theory of macro evolution ( molecol to man) by faith, without evidence.
@paologeminiani "That sounds more like an inference or deduction than a fact"
Why can't inference or deduction be fact? Think carefully.
"theory of macro evolution"
Now this is one of the most pervasive and idiotic statements that creationists make. Macro means big, micro - small. If you can'y see how many small things add up to a big thing then you need to think again before making comments such as this, for now it remains youtube/creationist rhetoric only.
WTF, i just thumbed up the video and how many are down and why, what the hell, seriously, this video is well researched and clear as well as concise and straight to the point, why would it deserve a thumbs down, ahh, because creationists have just been told santa doesnt exist. Nice video.
So far that only says that genetic capacity - not genetic information - can be increased. But Dawkins then goes on to give an example of how repeated gene duplications followed by divergence in duplicates, can increase genetic information. He devotes a long paragraph to discussing an original globin gene that, through duplication of it and some of the resulting duplicates, with divergence amongst the copies following duplication, formed a family of 8 different globin genes.
I myself pointed out that Dawkins answered the question more than 10 years before the Creationists' interview, in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker. I posted saying that 11 months ago in these comments. I am looking at that post of mine right now.
Dawkins had explained how genetic information could be added to a genome MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE the interview. The interview took place on September 16, 1997, but in Dawkins 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker" he mentioned a few different ways that information could be added to a genome.
-----
"The main point was that the total genetic capacity of a species may increase due to gene duplications."
(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Co., 1986, p175)
I have a couple quotes from the Blind Watchmaker where Dawkins talks about increasing genetic information that I was kind of surprised you didn't include ...
Joan Oró experiment proved the synthesis of the nucleobase adenine (a key component of nucleic acids) from hydrogen cyanide.
But here is the glitch: adenine is not alive. So this example is not answering the simple question of the reporter.
Also I have to say that I hate Dawkins "I-do-not-talk-to-creationist-people" attitude, it is not certainly the kind of attitude that scientific people should have. Atheist people, like all religious fanatics, have the tendency of being too rude.
My only criticism is that you imply a bacteria will evolve into a human (which is one of the main misconceptions amongst creationist) when in fact they share a common ancestor but you know that.
Anybody with rudimentary knowledge of biology can base this argument. if you read the question its not asking about how does it add more information its asking is there an evolutionary process that can significantly change/add different information to the genome/DNA strands.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
DNA replication what you seem to be alluding to for most of the video and that's means that the information held in each strand is redundant because of base pairing rules. Dawkins' example is simply pointing out substitutions, deletion, transversions, translations, transitions of parts of a dna strand but it is not ADDING information instead rearranging the existing information.
Gene duplication is not the same as replication. it is actualy having two copies of the same gene at different loci in the genome. One gene keeps its normal function and another is free to accumilate mutations. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of biology would know this process.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yeah, this fallacious behavior from Creationists comes from (I think) confusing either purposely or accidentally the definition of Thermodynamic Information with "Genetic Information".
Thermodynamic information, which goes down as entropy goes up, cannot increase in a closed system via the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
"Genetic Information", or the genome of a species, can and has increased, as predicted by evolutionary biology.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This would kind of go over the heads of any moderately intelligent person, but to a creationist, this explanation would be way in outer space. Oh wait, outer space is just a theory.
Well evolutionist seem to have the upper hand no doubt, but this seems more to do with creationist general pathetic narrow mindedness. I would advise all to check out Spetner and Max discussing this (easily found online). The Dawkins stumped vid could be a hoax, although he does look genuinely stumped. The question does not have a simple answer and I know you pre-emptied this but you 'are' talking about gene duplication. Remember science should be based on evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is an ass load of evidence. We even observe abnormally large duplications in the human genome although they are largely harmful mutations. Trisonomy 21 is a mutation that duplicates either the entire 21st chromosome or a signifigant fraction of it. That's a lot of raw material being added to the genome. Duplication of intron sequences, gene sequences, partial gene sequences, or even x and y chromosomes resulting in XXY or XYY are not implausible. Some species have a fused XY chromsome
You say largely harmful mutations. As far as I am aware there has been no observation of beneficial mutations. Can you give an example of this? The term information is misleading. Any information is not necessarily good information.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nylonase. Bacteria have been observed to have evolved to produce nylon-digesting enzymes - and we know how this mutation occurs at the molecular level. Also, bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics, and insects and plants have evolved resistance to pesticides and herbicides.
You guys need to defend Dawkins? Is he that weak? I was surprised that Bill O'Reilly held his own against Dawkins, and with no scientific background whatsoever. He didn't shine,but he held his own. I thought Richard would wax the floor with him, but it never happened. Watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in theaters on April 18th.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
richard dawkins was constantly interupted by him, he hardly got to talk, all i saw was bill throwing his beleifs at dawkins and interupting whenever he tried to reply
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Listen bonehead, Dawkins doesn't need defending to knuckleheads like you, he needs EXPLAINING. As for O'Reilly having "held his own"- this is in the eye of the beholder, as any person as ignorant of evolutionary matters as O'Reilly would be underwhelmed by Dawkins in such a forum. What sort of forum? Any forum that is incapable of allowing entrance to the complexities of these matters, which requires some work on the part of anyone interested. (And by work I mean reading a GodDamn book.)
I am currently reading The Blind Watchmaker. Good read. I currently have the Ancestor's Tale and The Selfish Gene tucked away too for later. Anyway, good video.
Smug one, arent you? Well its not hard when you make a clip that you have to watch you video 4 times to work out what the heck your talking about. I can see some of your arguments but the rest ... well mabe you should redux this one for the the less sophisticated.
you see it's in the dumbing down of science where you get people like your own dumbass self commander fox, deciding that its not right because of lack of evidence or some other bullshit. if you cant understand get a degree or just pick up a fucking book its not scientists responsibility to tell you facts in a way that doesn't make retards heads explode. damn iv'e never met you but i bet your a dickhead.
IM sorry, YOUTUBE not a fucking conference on fucking christian scince. I said i understood most of his arguements, did i say "DAH IM A FUCKING RETARD DAT DOES NOT UNDERSATAND"? Im in the process of getting a diploma in zoonotic deseases so dont fucking tell me im dumbing down scince. I just recon he needs to explain better, mabe making a clip in a few parts so hes not short on time, rather than bombarding us with quick arguements. I mean, look at the other comments, go abuse them dickhead.
Dawkins did not know the answer precisely. Furthermore, his model required a person to do the selecting! See my web page for a complete model and have fun running the program!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The end goal of a sentence is predetermined by a human but suitability of organisms to their environment are not. That is determined by nature. The model does not require a person to do the selecting. There is no distant goal in mind with evolution.
just a technicality but the globin gene must have evolved more than 100 million years ago, dinosaurs existed more than 250 million years ago & they would have had such a gene.
That "Me thinks it is like a weasel" is a bunch of nonsense. There is NO TARGET in evolution. And as Dawkins has said himself, every single small step has to be useful or else natural selection has nothing to work on and filters it out. "Yehtinkspitxishlikefa wqysey" doesn't get passed on because it isn't beneficial. That's one of Dawkin's dishonest little games.
Are you kidding? Evolution's target is increased fitness. In this case the fitness was being more like "methinks it is like a weasel". The only catch is "methinks it is like a weasel" is irreducably complex, and nothing in nature has been shown to be.
Well what is the point of using something that's irreducibly complex to explain something that's not it doesnt make sense, Why not give a factual example from nature instead of fiction from the pen of Dawkins!
So why don't you spend more time explaining why the program takes certain liberties the natural world doesn't, instead of complaining that it's just a simulation? BTW, learn to use punctuation and capitalisation, or better yet come up with some actual logical arguements besides ad hominem attacks.
So simulations are enough to make reliable aircraft, but they're not enough to accurately simulate a simple process of mutation and natural selection?
We can simulate flight because we know how it works, We dont know the origin of information, So what is the point of trying to simulate somthing we don't yet understand?
Then the answers no. Unfortunately for you the same answer would be given for any area of science. Science doesn't work in black or whites. Every coding nucleotide is information, and evolution isn't concerned with abiogenesis. As long as DNA exists, and it obviously does, that's all evolution cares about.
Well if evolution isn't concerned with the origin of information why is dawkins writing about it, And why are you making a video defending him ,You being an evolutionist?
WOW king size evasion ,It has to get there before it can increase your taking the same comfort zone a religious nut takes when he refuses to address the uncomfortable parts of his beliefs.
What's there to be uncomfortable about? We've formed nucleotides through abiotic means, if my point rested on that why would I be avoiding it? Or are you telling me it's possible for a bacterium to evolve into a human as long as the bacterium was created?
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. Science is not simple and needs sharp guys like you to break it all down and explain it. I wish more scientists made presentations like this. The creationists would be drowning in facts.
proof that reading a bible causes mental retardation follows:
"The fact it's a simulation is enough to invalidate it,"
we wouldn't have many of our modern drugs without simulations, we wouldn't have a lot of the knowledge we have about astronomy and the universe without simulations... i'd think of 5 more things we wouldn't have if it wasn't 3am right now!
No, that's not quite true. Most genetic mutations actually do almost nothing. The mutations that do absolutely nothing may or may not get passed on. If an animal with an irrelevant mutation fucks another animal, it gets passed on. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
If you were an evolutionist, you'd know for a certainty that the egg is in fact that which came first, not the chicken, because the chicken's ancestors also had eggs.
They say god created the earth but how did he do it? How did this being come into existence in the middle of nothing in the first place? Yet these same people don't believe that gases formed from combinations of chemicals set off an explosion that created the universe. The problem is we are trying be logical with people that have faith in nonsense.
Logical? You explain to me why you believe that a big bang, which came from nothing exploded and created everything in the physical universe including time itself, yet you don't believe in a supernatural Creator? You're the one lacking logic, and I'm tired of dumb atheists making the assertion that they are logical, and everyone else is not. Brian Sapient is not logical
Important points regarding your post, CrossReach.
1. If you believe the Big Bang is an explosion from nothing, you are either ignorant, or being purposely deceitful.
2. Belief in the big bang, or any scientific theory, does not, in any way, relate to their belief in a religion. It is entirely possible to be a christian, and acknowledge scientific theories.
3. It doesn't matter who is or isn't logical. The truth is not decided by committee.
1) Do tell then, what is the Big Bang. There was nothing and then there was everything! The stars, the planets, the oceans, the trees, the bees and then you and me! Sounds like a great fairytale.
2) Oh but it does, because it has to to with origins. Origins of the universe to be more specific. And you can't believe that everything came about without God... if you believe that God made everything... right???
1)Actually the story of God sounds like (and is) a fairy tale. (There is an equal amount of evidence for fairies as there is for God.) There was no before the Big Bang because the big bang was the beginning of space and time itself. There could have been no cause because there was no before. Scientists believe in the big bang for the following reasons:
prove that statement "there is an equal amount of evidence for fairies as there is for God." You see those kinds of whimsical, made-up-on-the-spot statements show the extent of your crediblity.
3) That's what i said! The truth doesn't have to make sense... but it has to be so. And how can a big bang be so? It can't be recreated or demonstrated. God fits the puzzle so perfectly
Man was so powerful to come up with the Atomic bomb and make clones of sheep, God is WAY more powerful than that to make life. Why doubt him and worship mere chance?
We've observed man make the atomic bomb and clones of sheep. Nature is not mere chance. If you don't believe me try dropping something. If nature was chance we would expect something to fall upwards at least once.
Aww, but Nature is only a reflected creation of God. See, if humans made cars, woudln't cars say "Hey, see that building, that's where my humans made me alive." We only see the building not who made it. Nature is as we are--a creation. But interesting poing.
Ok, if we were closer to the sun we'd fry, if we were further we'd freeze. Chance isn't that acccurate. Even our eyesballs are so complex mere evolution wasn't enough to help out.
It does. If the cars had a soul and could speak they would not deny humans creating them.
There are many things to proove God exists, but people rationlize them away. God shouldn't have to show up every day as Jesus in the flesh to proove himself.
"Ok, if we were closer to the sun we'd fry, if we were further we'd freeze"
and? what is your point? There are 100 billion KNOWN galaxies, with who KNOWs how many hundreds of billions more!? it isn't that remarkable there's intelligent life in the universe.
"Chance isn't that acccurate. "
says whom?
"Even our eyesballs are so complex mere evolution wasn't enough to help out."
pretty ignorant of you to say so. where's your proof?
YOUR VOICE IS AWFUL - YOU SOUND LIKE A COMPUTER ROBOT - COMPLETELY UNHUMAN
awdat 2 months ago
It doesnt matter, you cant have something evolve that doesnt exist. god still had to create the universe!!
stephen7796 7 months ago
@stephen7796 If anything that exists has to have been created, who created God? God supposedly exists doesn't he?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 If that's the bottomline of your argument it is hilarious.
The very BASIC presupposition when discussing God is His ETERNAL NATURE. Not infinite, which implies a beginning, but eternal - no beginning, no end. God always has been, always is and always will be.
Hard to grasp with your superficial scientific mind?
SmokiSounds 4 months ago
@SmokiSounds In other words not everything that exists needs a creator. Thank you for reenforcing my point.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@Impaler1815 Everything within our material existence does, yes. That's the cause-effect rule, the very foundation of any scientific experiment, of any conversation, of any action. Any action has a result, and any action is a result of a previous action.
But you equate God, a SUPERnatural deity (=non material, transcendant) to material objects. A crucial and very basic mistake.
Your point isn't reinforced, it is refuted by logical analysis.
SmokiSounds 4 months ago
@SmokiSounds Claiming God's supernatural doesn't change anything. He still has all the attributes of material objects you claim require a creator: Existence and complexity. If God can exist forever, so can energy. The first cause argument never addresses that.
Impaler1815 4 months ago
@stephen7796 Evolution has noting to do with God or Atheists. Sorry it proves your religion wrong.
gregrutz 6 months ago
This video uses the fraudulent "Me thinks it is a weasel" B.S. When are people going to realize there IS NO TARGET in random gene mutations. Geez. And of course anybody can say gene duplication duplicates genes, but that doesn't explain how it happens and survives natural selection. Come on.
Richard Dawkins actually gave his response to the "stumped video" on his website where he didn't give an actual answer there either. It's all covered in this video:
watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo
Elhardt 9 months ago
@Elhardt You haven't thought this through.
There was no target for the mutations in the weasel program either. Just like in real life the mutations were random. Also, just like in real life, the selection wasn't.
"but that doesn't explain how it happens"
Is that relevant? Are you denying gene duplication happens?
"survives natural selection."
Are you saying there's something about gene duplication that means it shouldn't survive natural selection?
Impaler1815 9 months ago
@Impaler1815 Don't tell me I haven't thought things through. There most certainly is a target in Dawkin's "Methinks it is like a weasel" example. Anytime his random mutation gets the correct letter it magically knows it, locks into place, nd doesn't change from that point on. It's a totally bogus example. Anybody with any knowledge of math knows that it would take an average of 28 raised to the 27th power to randomly stumble upon that combination with random mutations.
Elhardt 8 months ago
@Elhardt Yes, Dawkins explained the probabilities of getting that result through random chance in the book. When a letter randomly changes to the right one it gets selected. That's how natural selection works. Also, in the program all the letters are subject to mutation, even the ones that have already been selected for. Either you don't know how evolution works, or you haven't thought this through. Probably both.
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@Impaler1815 As for gene duplication, I'm pointing out the meaningless talk in relation to that. Dawkins couldn't give and example, so yes that matters in relation to this video. A duplicate gene doesn't do anything new and thus shouldn't survive natural selection, if we're to follow the theory we're taught. The point is, Dawkins was stumped and couldn't give any clear example. Humans have about the same number of genes as other animals, even flies, so number of genes doesn't mean much.
Elhardt 8 months ago
@Elhardt Dawkins explained a common, well observed process. It's as necessary to give an example of gene duplication as it is to give one of gravity. I gave an example in the description of this video, which was also selected for. Like I said, do you deny gene duplication occurs?
If a duplicated gene doesn't do anything doesn't that make it neutral? Meaning there won't be any selection for or against it? Didn't think this through.
Yes, other animals have large genomes too, what's your point?
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@Elhardt Dawkins didn't give an example, and considering he knew examples the only logical conclusion is that there was another reason for him pausing. Consider as well that the creationists won't release any of the footage from between cuts that they say exists, and that they claim proves their point. What are they hiding?
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@Elhardt Dawkins was stumped because the question is so fucked up. Darwin didn't even know about mutations or DNA when he showed how evolution works.
Any change in the DNA is ''New Information"
gregrutz 6 months ago
the old "scientific community doesn't accept the flood geologists" crap. just because many evolutionists reject it says more about their stupidity and zeal than it does about bad science. after all, these idiots are the ones who believe that something came from nothing, the whole universe fell into place in perfect order and that dinos magically transformed into birds. evolutionist stupidity should not be held up as evidence against the flood.
unfrzncvmnloyr 1 year ago
Astonishing claims require astonishing evidence.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
Chris Hitchens.
*See my teapot orbiting around the back of Saturn...
noiseache 1 year ago
I suggest you spend some time looking into the evolutionary skeletal evidence for both the horse which is almost complete and the whale which has an excellent transitional display. You can't spout creationist nonsense when there is actually evidence out there. Your brainwashing won't allow you to accept the truth. Don't worry you can overcome it. The big bang and evolution are completely separate scientific fields. However there is concrete evidence for both hypotheses. Just google it!
noiseache 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins appearing to be "stumped" by this question is now a central part of Creationist folklore when all it shows is the bankruptcy of Creationism as science.
Anybody who has actually read Dawkins, knows that his actually being "stumped" by this question is about as likely as Stephen Hawking being stumped by a question of high-school algebra.
Creationists don't bother to read his work yet criticize it anyway... they watch videos and draw conclusions from a what someone does not say.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Answers
cbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov (/) pubmed (/) 10978
ncbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov (/) pubmed (/) 11084
He answered this over 10 years prior to interview in The Blind Watchmaker in 1986 pg 172-175. To suggest he couldn't answer is dishonest!
He paused due to the realization that he was duped into an interview with creationists!
Also, here's a vid of him talking about it
watch?v=cyYjPbNeq
Skip to about 3:30...
noanswersingenesis (dot) (or g) (dot) au (/) dawkinschallenge (dot) htm
seansalvador1 1 year ago
He's not stumped he's just thinking about how to answer the question properly and thoroughly. It pisses me off how people are saying "Ooooh he doesn't know all the answers!", which obviously no one does, but you see him question all those creationists and stuff and almost every question they are asked they can't answer. They're like politicians, never ever giving a straight answer and always going in circles.
KidsWithGuns1992 1 year ago
According to theory, the human genome should be changing by at least 30 base pairs per generation.
The obvious meaning of the "Dawkins Stumped' question is: show us the latest changes - the most recent mutant base pairs.
This video tells us nothing. It simply makes assertions: "the main things that must have happened...".
Dawkins had sense enough to keep his mouth shut, unlike the fruitcake narrator of this video.
Mdebacle 1 year ago
evolution has NO evidence supporting it. But instead, evidence proves evolution WRONG
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal I love this comment......
Well the most obvious example is bacteria which adapt to surive drugs, hence why we have to develop our medicinal drugs and there is all talk of things such as the superbug..
hope this blindly obvious example was helpful for you :)
ARecordMachine 1 year ago
@rjisreal The 'theory' of evolution is used to develop drugs against resistant bacteria. They anticipate and design drugs around the bacterium's natural selection process and can then create a treatment that circumvents the natural evolution.
Let's hope you or your children don't require the use of these groundbreaking drugs but if you do, remember that it's the work of those who don't swallow stone age myths that save your lives.
noiseache 1 year ago
@noiseache uhh...i dont have children lol, im a teenager. and 2. what you are talking about isnt evolution at all...the bacteria is still the same bacteria as it was before except now it resists the drugs. thats called adaption, not evolution...no matter how many times an animal adapts, it wont become another animal. A fish wont become a dog, a cat wont become an elephant, etc.
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal I'm afraid this comment shows your level of misunderstanding about the theory you love to pour derision on. Your other one about ToE having zero evidence despite it being the grand unifying theory of the entire field of biology is equally vacuous. "no matter how many times an animal adapts, it wont become another animal" - so how do you account for the fact that DNA, molecular biological - right up to skeletal evidence & everything in between points to the contrary? Keep up the denial!
noiseache 1 year ago
@noiseache no it doesnt. and nothing "points to the contrary" ... if this evolution happened, we would have in-between skeletons and do we? no. there isnt even a scrap of evidence that the big bang / evolution happened. and even if it did happen, God made it happen
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal However, your best evidence is the geographical distribution of species and the convergent evolution seen in them. Predators and prey - marsupials and mammals on separate continents evolving similar body shapes and behaviour given the environment, predation and diet variables despite them being completely removed genetically. This proves evolution without a doubt, the molecular and fossil evidence only hammers it home with more force. Creationists are in an ever decreasing corner.
noiseache 1 year ago
@noiseache how does that prove evolution true? thats like saying "Hey I'm telling you a lie, so it must be true." Whats the probability that two different types of animal that has never even been within miles of eachother would be so similar? It is such a low probability that science would consider it impossible.
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal Because it demonstrates unequivocally that evolution takes place and that bio systems work towards a similar level of development despite their separation. OK granted I shouldn't use the word prove, that's solely for maths but you cannot deny the pathway. I'm not sure what you mean by the last statement. This is the crux of the misunderstanding with evolution, it is a very simple hypothesis and the steps needed to go from one to another are in fact relatively small-not infinitesimal.
noiseache 1 year ago
@noiseache ok, but why, then, do scientists believe that life in other planets will be so different? If life all develops the same way, why do we have plants? Bacteria? Fish? People? They all are completely different. And we have not come across any example of an in-between animal crossing over through evolution into a different species.
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal Because of the environment. There may be 100k planets out there that support life but the chances of them having the exact chemical make up of earth ARE very improbable. Life develops in convergence HERE, because the environment is similar. Grass in Australia is pretty much the same as Grass in Norway, animals evolve to eat it and then other animals prey on those animals. - Last Comment: If you mean has anyone SEEN it happen, well no as it takes hundreds of thousands of years!
noiseache 1 year ago
@rjisreal There have been plenty of observed instances of speciation including flies, beetles, worms, grasshoppers but mostly across the realm of plant, virus and bacteria since testing on these does not involve long lifespans where maturity needs to be reached before breeding, potential mutation etc. I would go and look up some of the scientific papers and start to digest what people have actually discovered and then falsify if you feel you have the ammunition to do so.
noiseache 1 year ago
@noiseache I doubt that i'll have the time, but if i get around to it, i will
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal Learning and understanding about this stuff is what will make the difference between inventing supernatural, metaphysical nonsense for what we see in the world and accepting what actually happened. Science may not have nailed the exact details on every issue but you cannot deny that the pathway can be clearly demonstrated - and of course easily falsified if you feel you can. The attempts to show evolution to be false have only made it stronger!
noiseache 1 year ago
@noiseache ok, im not going to say that evolution and the big bang didn't happen. But if they did, it was by God's hand.
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal This is one of the fundamental problems in the world today. People are in love with their fairy tales so much that they ignore plain and simple truth in favour of said mythology. That mythology also depends on the geographic location of your birth and nothing to do with any 'true word of god'. American probably Christian, Indian - Hindu, Indonesian-Muslim etc...
One day mankind will shake off superstitious claptrap and hocum. I for one hope this day comes sooner rather than later.
noiseache 1 year ago
@noiseache obviously, nobody is reading my last two comments so I will say it a third time...I am not saying whether evolution/big bang happened or not...if it somehow did happen, it was by the hand of God...so im not trying to disprove your little "truth"
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal
There are reams of evidence that i have listed too many times to count at this inane assertion.
Whenever i list some of them for people making this accusation they tend to disappear only to return at a later date and level the same idiot accusation that there is none!
Here's just one tiny example.
DNA sequencing and how it relates to nested hierarchies.
How about another, observed speciation .
Another? - vestgiality and atavisms.
How about paleontological evidence?
None?!
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 im sorry i dont know what youre talking about as im still in high school...but honestly, evolution makes no sense and defies logic and science. and since science seems to be the god of atheists, you are defying your own 'religion'
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal Science defined evolution. The same scientific methods to produce hypotheses and models were and are used on ToE. It holds up brilliantly and more importantly you can use ToE to predict things which is the true mark of a good scientific model. Moreover, Evolution is easily falsified. You just need to show a fossil out of it's geological strata and bang, you'll be the most famous person in the world. Despite years of trying, no one has been able to falsify the theory.
noiseache 1 year ago
@rjisreal
I think that as a high school student you should really think about studying it before you make such a bold statement as "[evolution] defies logic and science".
Take it from me as a person who has studied it, it does not defy logic and IS science.
Science is not a religion such as Christianity, by definition. If i follow a football club religiously then that does not mean that football isa religion, there are more than one definitions to most words and you are mixing definitions.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@rjisreal There are reams of evidence that i have listed too many times to count.
Whenever i list some of them for people making accusations of no evidence etc. they tend to disappear only to return at a later date and level the same idiot accusation that there is none!
Here's just one tiny example.
DNA sequencing and how it relates to nested hierarchies.
How about another, observed speciation .
Another? - vestgiality and atavisms.
How about paleontological evidence?
I could go on...
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 As i said, Im not gona say whether it happened or not, all I'm saying is that whatever happened was caused by God.
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal
You could say that about literally anything, and i could attribute it to pirates or the flying spaghetti monster so it hardly moves the discussion on!
The fact remains that there is no evidence of this omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent super being. Weird eh?
If he interacts with thte universe then he can be tested. There still remains no evidence.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 there is evidence...just look at the great flood of Noah's Ark. In almost any city or location you may visit, they will tell you that at one point in time, it was a great lake covering all the land...that would be silly that everywhere was a great lake, that would mean that the entire world was a great lake. The only explaination is that the story is real and that God really did flood the earth.
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal
Cities are always built next to rivers (fresh water supply) and are therefore susceptible to flooding, to claim that because many cities have been flooded then there must therefore have been a global flood is not only an idiotic non sequitur, it is also against all geological evidence to the contrary!
The story of Noah was ripped off, almost word for word, from earlier myths such as the tale of Utanapistim in the Epic of Gilgemesh.
It is also self contradictory (2 of each animal or 7?)
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1 i have never heard of seven of each animal in the flood. the gillgamesh thing was written first, but remember that the Bible was put together way after many of the things happened. so maybe gilgamesh's story is just another copy of the same story and its not ripped, its just transferred. And how is my claim idiotic? how is it against geological evidence? why did you use latin when we are supposed to be speaking english? Why do people keep talking to me? Im sick of notifications
rjisreal 1 year ago
@rjisreal
It's right there in the bible (GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female).
It contradicts itself on this in GEN 7:8 and GEN 7:9 where it says pairs.
"maybe gilgamesh's [isn't copy]"
Well it has different names and was written before the bible says the earth began!
Cont...
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@rjisreal "how is it against geological evidence?"
I'm not about to go into great detail, in short there's no evidence for a global flood and there would be. There would be plenty. There are many inconsistencies also, like the fact that animals like Whales would also be killed in a global flood (food supplies would die due to different salinities) and the fact that there is not that much water even if you melted the icecaps.
Cont...
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@rjisreal "why did you use Latin when we are supposed to be speaking English?"
The latin 'non sequitur' is a very well known logical fallacy and is used in everyday English. It means "it does not follow." It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements.
I wasn't trying to confuse you.
"Why do people keep talking to me?"
Because you replied. If you are sick of them then don't reply...
There are also many other reasons why a global flood is absurd.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@rjisreal In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists (Isaak, M (1998). "Problems with a Global Flood")
The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities.
Etc...
seansalvador1 1 year ago
You are talking about something which you cannot test or reproduce, in fact the words
" Must have happened " are quoted in your video. That sounds more like an inference or deduction than a fact. The truth is that you need to accept the theory of macro evolution ( molecol to man) by faith, without evidence.
paologeminiani 1 year ago
@paologeminiani "That sounds more like an inference or deduction than a fact"
Why can't inference or deduction be fact? Think carefully.
"theory of macro evolution"
Now this is one of the most pervasive and idiotic statements that creationists make. Macro means big, micro - small. If you can'y see how many small things add up to a big thing then you need to think again before making comments such as this, for now it remains youtube/creationist rhetoric only.
Google - dictionary - accumulation.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
WTF, i just thumbed up the video and how many are down and why, what the hell, seriously, this video is well researched and clear as well as concise and straight to the point, why would it deserve a thumbs down, ahh, because creationists have just been told santa doesnt exist. Nice video.
01101100d 1 year ago 2
So far that only says that genetic capacity - not genetic information - can be increased. But Dawkins then goes on to give an example of how repeated gene duplications followed by divergence in duplicates, can increase genetic information. He devotes a long paragraph to discussing an original globin gene that, through duplication of it and some of the resulting duplicates, with divergence amongst the copies following duplication, formed a family of 8 different globin genes.
DNAunion 2 years ago
@DNAunion
Define information.
He has given the answer to thins so many times... he spent his career dealing with this paltry nonsense.
Read the blind watchmaker. 10 years before the idiot creationist video where he pauses. There are MANY examples.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
@seansalvador1
Huh?
I myself pointed out that Dawkins answered the question more than 10 years before the Creationists' interview, in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker. I posted saying that 11 months ago in these comments. I am looking at that post of mine right now.
DNAunion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins had explained how genetic information could be added to a genome MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE the interview. The interview took place on September 16, 1997, but in Dawkins 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker" he mentioned a few different ways that information could be added to a genome.
-----
"The main point was that the total genetic capacity of a species may increase due to gene duplications."
(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Co., 1986, p175)
-----
DNAunion 2 years ago
Good video!
I have a couple quotes from the Blind Watchmaker where Dawkins talks about increasing genetic information that I was kind of surprised you didn't include ...
DNAunion 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ordinarily, when richard dawkins gets "stumped" it's usually down at the gay bath house by a fella named Pegleg Pete.
malithe00 2 years ago
Joan Oró experiment proved the synthesis of the nucleobase adenine (a key component of nucleic acids) from hydrogen cyanide.
But here is the glitch: adenine is not alive. So this example is not answering the simple question of the reporter.
Also I have to say that I hate Dawkins "I-do-not-talk-to-creationist-people" attitude, it is not certainly the kind of attitude that scientific people should have. Atheist people, like all religious fanatics, have the tendency of being too rude.
friedrichgonzalez 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hate Richard Dawkins. (But don't worry--I'm an evolutionist! I'm more of a Gould-man myself, however.)
KilVall 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
damn slow the fuck down you fuckin high fuck.
RomanS1234567 2 years ago
I second that. I'm sure this is an interesting dsicussion but I'm not continuing after the 2 minute mark. Can't figure out half of what he said.
meilinlee123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's not an Hoax ,
Dr Dawkins admit everything in :
.
The Information Challenge
skeptics(dot)com(dot)au/articles/dawkins(dot)htm
saying :
"The answer in practice is complicated and controversial"
.
Read the full article and you will understand why he got stumped.
.
Texoki 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It still doesn't show where bacterium a has a certain gene sequence and bacterium b has added a sequence due to random mutation that is beneficial.
BTW, Who wrote the computer program?
gmbrannan 2 years ago
Um.. yes it does. Did you just glaze over when he was talking or something?
Proletariat12 2 years ago
I did.
CRaZeeSHoT 2 years ago
My only criticism is that you imply a bacteria will evolve into a human (which is one of the main misconceptions amongst creationist) when in fact they share a common ancestor but you know that.
wswordsmen 3 years ago
Ouch Impaler, you got it bad from the creationist bot.
I don't know whether you should feel honoured or violated
ProcInc 3 years ago
Looks like the comment page was hit by the creationist bot....
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago 19
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy sounds like hes on speed, I cant keep up with his speech
watchman241 3 years ago
Anybody with rudimentary knowledge of biology can base this argument. if you read the question its not asking about how does it add more information its asking is there an evolutionary process that can significantly change/add different information to the genome/DNA strands.
Litkisla 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DNA replication what you seem to be alluding to for most of the video and that's means that the information held in each strand is redundant because of base pairing rules. Dawkins' example is simply pointing out substitutions, deletion, transversions, translations, transitions of parts of a dna strand but it is not ADDING information instead rearranging the existing information.
Litkisla 3 years ago
Gene duplication is not the same as replication. it is actualy having two copies of the same gene at different loci in the genome. One gene keeps its normal function and another is free to accumilate mutations. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of biology would know this process.
snakeguy76 3 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah, this fallacious behavior from Creationists comes from (I think) confusing either purposely or accidentally the definition of Thermodynamic Information with "Genetic Information".
Thermodynamic information, which goes down as entropy goes up, cannot increase in a closed system via the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
"Genetic Information", or the genome of a species, can and has increased, as predicted by evolutionary biology.
qdogg224 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This would kind of go over the heads of any moderately intelligent person, but to a creationist, this explanation would be way in outer space. Oh wait, outer space is just a theory.
wayofthemasturbator 3 years ago
Well evolutionist seem to have the upper hand no doubt, but this seems more to do with creationist general pathetic narrow mindedness. I would advise all to check out Spetner and Max discussing this (easily found online). The Dawkins stumped vid could be a hoax, although he does look genuinely stumped. The question does not have a simple answer and I know you pre-emptied this but you 'are' talking about gene duplication. Remember science should be based on evidence.
Nimzomyth68 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is an ass load of evidence. We even observe abnormally large duplications in the human genome although they are largely harmful mutations. Trisonomy 21 is a mutation that duplicates either the entire 21st chromosome or a signifigant fraction of it. That's a lot of raw material being added to the genome. Duplication of intron sequences, gene sequences, partial gene sequences, or even x and y chromosomes resulting in XXY or XYY are not implausible. Some species have a fused XY chromsome
kjmoon21 3 years ago
You say largely harmful mutations. As far as I am aware there has been no observation of beneficial mutations. Can you give an example of this? The term information is misleading. Any information is not necessarily good information.
Nimzomyth68 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nylonase. Bacteria have been observed to have evolved to produce nylon-digesting enzymes - and we know how this mutation occurs at the molecular level. Also, bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics, and insects and plants have evolved resistance to pesticides and herbicides.
scotchfaster 3 years ago
ok thank you, I will look into this further.
Nimzomyth68 3 years ago 4
You guys need to defend Dawkins? Is he that weak? I was surprised that Bill O'Reilly held his own against Dawkins, and with no scientific background whatsoever. He didn't shine,but he held his own. I thought Richard would wax the floor with him, but it never happened. Watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in theaters on April 18th.
pottershand 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
richard dawkins was constantly interupted by him, he hardly got to talk, all i saw was bill throwing his beleifs at dawkins and interupting whenever he tried to reply
Erech01 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Listen bonehead, Dawkins doesn't need defending to knuckleheads like you, he needs EXPLAINING. As for O'Reilly having "held his own"- this is in the eye of the beholder, as any person as ignorant of evolutionary matters as O'Reilly would be underwhelmed by Dawkins in such a forum. What sort of forum? Any forum that is incapable of allowing entrance to the complexities of these matters, which requires some work on the part of anyone interested. (And by work I mean reading a GodDamn book.)
Nudiford 3 years ago
"The bible says it, i believe it, that settles it."
goatyboy2007 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You showing the stupidity of christians or just being one?
TheBigGameHunter1 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Bible also says to have a open mind
Dubi911 4 years ago
The buybull is also crap.
Mushinronjya 4 years ago
Yeah, open mind to the book and nothing else.
wayofthemasturbator 3 years ago
I am currently reading The Blind Watchmaker. Good read. I currently have the Ancestor's Tale and The Selfish Gene tucked away too for later. Anyway, good video.
BobbyBBobson 4 years ago
Smug one, arent you? Well its not hard when you make a clip that you have to watch you video 4 times to work out what the heck your talking about. I can see some of your arguments but the rest ... well mabe you should redux this one for the the less sophisticated.
CommanderFox89 4 years ago
you see it's in the dumbing down of science where you get people like your own dumbass self commander fox, deciding that its not right because of lack of evidence or some other bullshit. if you cant understand get a degree or just pick up a fucking book its not scientists responsibility to tell you facts in a way that doesn't make retards heads explode. damn iv'e never met you but i bet your a dickhead.
ps. good video nice one
DarwinISmyHOMEboy 4 years ago
IM sorry, YOUTUBE not a fucking conference on fucking christian scince. I said i understood most of his arguements, did i say "DAH IM A FUCKING RETARD DAT DOES NOT UNDERSATAND"? Im in the process of getting a diploma in zoonotic deseases so dont fucking tell me im dumbing down scince. I just recon he needs to explain better, mabe making a clip in a few parts so hes not short on time, rather than bombarding us with quick arguements. I mean, look at the other comments, go abuse them dickhead.
CommanderFox89 4 years ago
Some of that was severly over my head, but wow what a wicked video.
andrewrberkshire 4 years ago 2
Yikes ... I'm not versed enough to comment on this.
I'll see if I can learn all this.
msginca 4 years ago
Dawkins did not know the answer precisely. Furthermore, his model required a person to do the selecting! See my web page for a complete model and have fun running the program!
tomdschneider 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The end goal of a sentence is predetermined by a human but suitability of organisms to their environment are not. That is determined by nature. The model does not require a person to do the selecting. There is no distant goal in mind with evolution.
ReligionIsACrutch 4 years ago
Oh right. The main problem with that model is that the person so explicitly puts the pattern in. See how the Evj
program does it - more like what happens in nature.
Also, it show explicitly how to measure the information
in bits.
tomdschneider 4 years ago
I'm a mutant, you're a mutant...ha!
beastshawnee 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I know the chicken's ancestor's weren't chickens. That was my point entirely.
beastshawnee 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Creationism denies science.
SJP3793 4 years ago
just a technicality but the globin gene must have evolved more than 100 million years ago, dinosaurs existed more than 250 million years ago & they would have had such a gene.
robbiethe3rd 4 years ago
That "Me thinks it is like a weasel" is a bunch of nonsense. There is NO TARGET in evolution. And as Dawkins has said himself, every single small step has to be useful or else natural selection has nothing to work on and filters it out. "Yehtinkspitxishlikefa wqysey" doesn't get passed on because it isn't beneficial. That's one of Dawkin's dishonest little games.
Elhardt 4 years ago
Are you kidding? Evolution's target is increased fitness. In this case the fitness was being more like "methinks it is like a weasel". The only catch is "methinks it is like a weasel" is irreducably complex, and nothing in nature has been shown to be.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
If me thinks it is like a weasel is irreducibly complex then it's not even apt
CHASCHARLTON 4 years ago 2
How so?
Impaler1815 4 years ago
Well what is the point of using something that's irreducibly complex to explain something that's not it doesnt make sense, Why not give a factual example from nature instead of fiction from the pen of Dawkins!
zosozm69 4 years ago 2
Your inability to comprehend anallogies has no effect on natural selection's ability to create complexity.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
I can understand analogies i just prefer evidence. BTW learn to spell people take you much more seriously
zosozm69 4 years ago
So why don't you spend more time explaining why the program takes certain liberties the natural world doesn't, instead of complaining that it's just a simulation? BTW, learn to use punctuation and capitalisation, or better yet come up with some actual logical arguements besides ad hominem attacks.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
The fact it's a simulation is enough to invalidate it, ad hominem attacks love it, You fundamental atheists are just as bad the fundamental theists
zosozm69 4 years ago 2
So simulations are useless in science? Tell that to anyone in the aviation industry. Do you know what an ad hominem attack is?
Impaler1815 4 years ago
The aviation industry has nothing to do with biology! Yes i know what an ad hominem attack is! What about it ?
zosozm69 4 years ago 4
So simulations are enough to make reliable aircraft, but they're not enough to accurately simulate a simple process of mutation and natural selection?
Impaler1815 4 years ago
We can simulate flight because we know how it works, We dont know the origin of information, So what is the point of trying to simulate somthing we don't yet understand?
zosozm69 4 years ago 6
...Are you honestly trying to tell me we don't know about mutation and natural selection?
Impaler1815 4 years ago
Are you trying to tell me we know as much about nutation and natural selection as we do about flight?
zosozm69 4 years ago
Yes, we've observed, tested and used them both directly. What's left to know?
Impaler1815 4 years ago
Do i really have to answer that seriously ?
zosozm69 4 years ago
Nice evasion. Unfortunately you do have to answer that seriously. Science didn't get to where it is today by chuckling and moving on.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
I am not trying to avoid anything. So we know all there is to know about mutations? yes or no?
zosozm69 4 years ago 2
Like all science there's always more to learn, but we know what they do and that's enough for the simulation.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
Nice evasion yes or no was the question! Anyway we still don't know the origin of information. That's why Dawkins used fiction!
zosozm69 4 years ago 4
Then the answers no. Unfortunately for you the same answer would be given for any area of science. Science doesn't work in black or whites. Every coding nucleotide is information, and evolution isn't concerned with abiogenesis. As long as DNA exists, and it obviously does, that's all evolution cares about.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
Well if evolution isn't concerned with the origin of information why is dawkins writing about it, And why are you making a video defending him ,You being an evolutionist?
zosozm69 4 years ago
Because the arguement is information can't increase, not that it can't get there in the first place.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
WOW king size evasion ,It has to get there before it can increase your taking the same comfort zone a religious nut takes when he refuses to address the uncomfortable parts of his beliefs.
CHASCHARLTON 4 years ago
What's there to be uncomfortable about? We've formed nucleotides through abiotic means, if my point rested on that why would I be avoiding it? Or are you telling me it's possible for a bacterium to evolve into a human as long as the bacterium was created?
Impaler1815 4 years ago
Yea yea we have, Can they form buy themselves thats the question?
zosozm69 4 years ago
Yes, they can form through natural means.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
And we have observed this?
zosozm69 4 years ago
Yes. Look up the 1961 Joan Oro abiogenesis experiments.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. Science is not simple and needs sharp guys like you to break it all down and explain it. I wish more scientists made presentations like this. The creationists would be drowning in facts.
busymartian 4 years ago 4
proof that reading a bible causes mental retardation follows:
"The fact it's a simulation is enough to invalidate it,"
we wouldn't have many of our modern drugs without simulations, we wouldn't have a lot of the knowledge we have about astronomy and the universe without simulations... i'd think of 5 more things we wouldn't have if it wasn't 3am right now!
lennyhipp 4 years ago
See that parrot is still in the house
zosozm69 4 years ago
No, that's not quite true. Most genetic mutations actually do almost nothing. The mutations that do absolutely nothing may or may not get passed on. If an animal with an irrelevant mutation fucks another animal, it gets passed on. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
dechha1981 4 years ago
If you were an evolutionist, you'd know for a certainty that the egg is in fact that which came first, not the chicken, because the chicken's ancestors also had eggs.
beastshawnee 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"because the chicken's ancestors also had eggs."
The chicken's ancestors were NOT chickens! Just as the first homo sapiens sapiens ancestors were not modern humans.
lennyhipp 4 years ago
what about plants anyone
which was first the oak-tree or the acorn ?
bit like chicken and egg . but harder .
ark1588 4 years ago 3
this guys accents sucks!!! I'm comparing his accent to all the accents I've ever heard of the english language! Is this guy from Yorkshire!! woah!
jeffbrown8 4 years ago
Australian you moron.
dechha1981 4 years ago
haha..sorry.. my australian friend from Brisbane doesn't sound like this..my bad though
jeffbrown8 4 years ago
Ah well, Queenslanders probably sound a bit different.
dechha1981 4 years ago
They say god created the earth but how did he do it? How did this being come into existence in the middle of nothing in the first place? Yet these same people don't believe that gases formed from combinations of chemicals set off an explosion that created the universe. The problem is we are trying be logical with people that have faith in nonsense.
spacecab1 4 years ago
Logical? You explain to me why you believe that a big bang, which came from nothing exploded and created everything in the physical universe including time itself, yet you don't believe in a supernatural Creator? You're the one lacking logic, and I'm tired of dumb atheists making the assertion that they are logical, and everyone else is not. Brian Sapient is not logical
CrossReach 4 years ago
Important points regarding your post, CrossReach.
1. If you believe the Big Bang is an explosion from nothing, you are either ignorant, or being purposely deceitful.
2. Belief in the big bang, or any scientific theory, does not, in any way, relate to their belief in a religion. It is entirely possible to be a christian, and acknowledge scientific theories.
3. It doesn't matter who is or isn't logical. The truth is not decided by committee.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Here's a response to your points...
1) Do tell then, what is the Big Bang. There was nothing and then there was everything! The stars, the planets, the oceans, the trees, the bees and then you and me! Sounds like a great fairytale.
2) Oh but it does, because it has to to with origins. Origins of the universe to be more specific. And you can't believe that everything came about without God... if you believe that God made everything... right???
MissionIreland 4 years ago
1)Actually the story of God sounds like (and is) a fairy tale. (There is an equal amount of evidence for fairies as there is for God.) There was no before the Big Bang because the big bang was the beginning of space and time itself. There could have been no cause because there was no before. Scientists believe in the big bang for the following reasons:
ODOGGY7 4 years ago
prove that statement "there is an equal amount of evidence for fairies as there is for God." You see those kinds of whimsical, made-up-on-the-spot statements show the extent of your crediblity.
You have no support for such a statement, do you?
If you do, i challenge you to present it.
MissionIreland 4 years ago
"And you can't believe that everything came about without God... if you believe that God made everything... right???"
an incredible oxymoron... if there was a god who created the universe, WHY couldn't he have been the one who initiated the big bang?
What YOU are trying to say ONLY makes sense if the creator was the christian god... where's the logic in that?!
lennyhipp 4 years ago
3) That's what i said! The truth doesn't have to make sense... but it has to be so. And how can a big bang be so? It can't be recreated or demonstrated. God fits the puzzle so perfectly
MissionIreland 4 years ago
" God fits the puzzle so perfectly"
he fits the puzzle so perfectly ONLY because HUMANS made him that way!
lennyhipp 4 years ago
"believe that a big bang, which came from nothing exploded and created everything"
A) prove that it came from nothing... NOBODY knows.
B) Big Bang Theory says NOTHING about an explosion
C) BBT has NOTHING to do with evolution.
"yet you don't believe in a supernatural Creator?"
Show me proof of a creator and i'll believe in one.
"the assertion that they are logical, and everyone else is not"
more proof that everyone else is not!
lennyhipp 4 years ago
Man was so powerful to come up with the Atomic bomb and make clones of sheep, God is WAY more powerful than that to make life. Why doubt him and worship mere chance?
DBR21 4 years ago
We've observed man make the atomic bomb and clones of sheep. Nature is not mere chance. If you don't believe me try dropping something. If nature was chance we would expect something to fall upwards at least once.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
Aww, but Nature is only a reflected creation of God. See, if humans made cars, woudln't cars say "Hey, see that building, that's where my humans made me alive." We only see the building not who made it. Nature is as we are--a creation. But interesting poing.
DBR21 4 years ago
"Aww, but Nature is only a reflected creation of God"
prove it.
"See, if humans made cars, woudln't cars say "Hey, see that building, that's where my humans made me alive."
Does that even make sense? Humans did make cars, what's your point?
"Why doubt him and worship mere chance?"
A) because there's NO proof of god, and
B) there's billions of pieces of evidence for evolution.
C) evolution doesn't require belief, so there's no worship.
D) as impaler said, evolution ISNT chance.
lennyhipp 4 years ago
Ok, if we were closer to the sun we'd fry, if we were further we'd freeze. Chance isn't that acccurate. Even our eyesballs are so complex mere evolution wasn't enough to help out.
It does. If the cars had a soul and could speak they would not deny humans creating them.
There are many things to proove God exists, but people rationlize them away. God shouldn't have to show up every day as Jesus in the flesh to proove himself.
If evolution isn't chance, what controls it?
DBR21 4 years ago
"Ok, if we were closer to the sun we'd fry, if we were further we'd freeze"
and? what is your point? There are 100 billion KNOWN galaxies, with who KNOWs how many hundreds of billions more!? it isn't that remarkable there's intelligent life in the universe.
"Chance isn't that acccurate. "
says whom?
"Even our eyesballs are so complex mere evolution wasn't enough to help out."
pretty ignorant of you to say so. where's your proof?
lennyhipp 4 years ago