PZ Myers Discussion (2/10) - Richard Dawkins

[TheBowsersMario]

Talk about a meeting of the minds. Great talk.

[FellOnSoundGarden]

I  have such respect for Dawkins. He's a scientist through and through. he has such a complete understandiing of evolution and is a wonderful teacher.

[whatatazoo]

I'm supposed to be studying for my evolution course. instead i spent two entire days watching richard dawkins videos lol. i guess this sort of time wasting is justified

[ErikHultin1]

Wonderful. Is not often you see Dawkins talking with someone whos not one of those religouse manekacks and instead have a scientific discusioun at this level.

[adelle0001]

nice one! thanks for this video!

[Solensherre]

Nice to see two biologists sit and talk.

[mdgreg]

I Heard a Geneticist Say Long Ago that "Population Evolve but Individuals Do Not".

[ilytopy]

fascinating.

[liquidzoot]

The bit about horn size vs testes.."robbing peter to pay paul" indeed...Well played Professor Dawkins

[blackestjake]

Two brilliant biologists, exciting to listen to such intellectual conversation. Helps put faith back in humanity where it belongs!

[shmeebegek1]

Why does evolvability have to have to do with phyla or groups? Survivability tracks groups indirectly, but it's accepted in this discussion that evolution works directly only on individuals. Why not for evolvability?

[AutoBahnForever]

One of the best video series on YouTube,.......

[bencsk8r]

thats my nans living room!!

[BrendanIsCool]

@bencsk8r what were they doing there? (insert all varieties of sexual jokes here)

[colourmegone]

One question that springs to mind, and it's a genuine question not an attack, is would any form evolve that didn't have the quality of 'evolvability'? That seems to me to be a logical given. Perhaps it's a question of degree?

[NDAtheist]

@colourmegone Something that can't evolve won't evolve, by definition. It is important to bear in mind that evolution doesn't really have a degree. You're traits are either changing or not. You might say that a single trait changing is less evolution than multiple traits changing, but also suppose 90 irrelevant genes change vs 1 important one. "Degree" isn't useful here.

Disclaimer: I am using evolution broadly. The biological process would require a response specific to it. 

[mikeyman211]

This is an intense discussion to follow. I wish I saw more of this.

[KFalcon17]

it's nice to hear these two engage in a real scientific discussion and not with some religious dolts.

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

@KFalcon17 agreed. If you were to type 'group selection v gene selection' or 'Dawkins V Gould' into youtube you get very little. Some of the most important evolutionary biologists cannot even be found on youtube, like J.B.S Haldane, W.D Hamilton, R.A Fisher, Sewall Wright or G G Simpson. Instead youtube is full of videos of atheists and creationists fighting and arguing, its a shame....

[Xgya2000]

@CMVD777 this simple question comes to mind:

Why would he hide himself among so many other gods.

Of course, being clear isn't something someone benevolent would do, especially if eternal torture he could simply forbid is at hand.

Suppose I believed in Thor. Thor is nice, he is brave and courageous, and a true example of strength and accomplishment.

My god wields a huge hammer. Yours died nailed. Any questions?

[gergister]

@Xgya2000

Can you choose your gods ? If so Id pick for myself Jenna Jameson. She doesn't exactly wave hammers, but...

[Xgya2000]

@gergister well, I guess it depends on your definition of "knockers"

[antonyrichardson30]

I am a lost soul who would like to debate theology but can't find a believer willing to have their faith examined. I am dying to have my atheistic beliefs challenged and if anyone (from any religion) feels they have an important point to put forward then i would be thrilled to hear it!

[DerEchteSenf]

@antonyrichardson30 You are aware that religion is not always about believing stuff, do you?

[antonyrichardson30]

@DerEchteSenf The argument runs omething like this:- 'I refuse to prove that I exist' says God 'for proof denies belief and without belief i am nothing'

If religion is not about belief then what is it about (possibly it's sole purpose is scaring the small child that you just took advantage of into not telling the police for fear of being sent to hell. Grow up!)

[mp82s]

I'm a big fan of PZ, but he's not on Dawkins' level in this discussion. I get the feeling that he's struggling to keep up and say something intelligent.

[magicbibledotcom]

Great discussion. Dawkins is class.

[1tabligh]

How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[BlankVellum]

@1tabligh: None of what you said made any sense. Who said atheists believe that hydrogen and oxygen produced themselves? I'd advise you to avoid the use of strawmen arguments. It really doesn't help your credibility.

[1tabligh]

Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!

[BlankVellum]

@1tabligh:

"Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed*"

Wrong. Science deals with evidence, hard bodies of fact that can be demonstrated and tested, and produce well defined theories that are falsifiable in light of new evidence. Scientists are always willing to change their minds when new evidence comes along.

But let me ask, what questions do you regard as beyond the remit of science? And could you provide evidence for your alternative/s?

[1tabligh]

God and Empirical Logic.

One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".

Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?

[BlankVellum]

@1tabligh: Enough with the pseudo philosophical nonsense. If you are saying that we must discard logic and empiricism in order ot recognise god, then you can forget it.

There are 2 aspects of logic. One is 'logic' as an application or concept, used by thinking entities as a mechanism for understanding the world. The second aspect is logical absolutes.These exist independent of reality, and are syllogistic. For instance, substance x exists by merit of its existence. The same applies to nothing.

[seansalvador1]

@BlankVellum

Don't bother... he's copy/pasting and will never reply, only paste more nonsensical psychobabble at you

[BlankVellum]

Now if you want to call these logical absolutes 'god', then you would get no further than Spinoza. It would only serve to muddy the waters.

[1tabligh]

Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?

[BlankVellum]

And your point was?

[1tabligh]

Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate? ...

[1tabligh]

Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.

[BlankVellum]

"Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter"

Wrong. You are using the worst kind of argument from ignorance, The beautiful thing about the universe is that it DOESN'T require a deux ex machina, some supernatural agent concocted to explain the complexity of life. Given enough time, intelligent life will arise in the universe. All it needs is some kind of replication fecundity and variation. Geological time will do the rest.

[BlankVellum]

But seriously though, you sound as if you haven't heard of a single objection to any of the points you just raised.

[1tabligh]

What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?

[BlankVellum]

Again, argument from ignorance. Adjust your position or this will continue for some time.

"nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?"

Your belittling of the natural world saddens me. But again, you are begging the question that there must have been an intelligent designer. Have you ever read a book on evolution? Answer honestly now.

[1tabligh]

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?

[BlankVellum]

Oh dear. You're stuck in a rut of abject ignorance looking for answers aren't you? Don't as me, ask any number of reputable biologists and get a sophistocated answer. Or alternatively read a book about the theories that you're trying to disprove or question.

[1tabligh]

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns conceming this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

[BlankVellum]

Scientists don't make claims as to the origins of the big bang. They freely admit that they don't know what came before the big bang. More to the point, neither do you.

[1tabligh]

God and Empirical Logic.

Matter or God?

Take your choice!

Some brainless scientists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.

But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

NO Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!

[ryko26]

@1tabligh um...all of them?

[1tabligh]

How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?

How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?

[ryko26]

Belief in God is the acceptance of contradiction because the Bible contains almost nothing but bullshit (which can be disproved by science). Do you need someone to explain how actually, we did not come from the rib of Adam, how the earth is a BIT older than a few thousand years, and how actually man did NOT walk with dinosaurs.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time writing this - I wouldn't bother arguing with someone who believed in Thor or fairies so why should you be any different!

[1tabligh]

the Bible contains

________

???

God and Empirical Logic.

Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!

Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....

[1tabligh]

either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?

[ryko26]

@1tabligh "Gibberish alert! Situation Red!"

Off you go now, and careful with any sharp objects.

[1tabligh]

Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.

[1tabligh]

Dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!

Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!

Matter and Motion

Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?

[ryko26]

@1tabligh I see what you mean, or at least, I am the eggman, I am the walrus, goo goo cachoo

[1tabligh]

In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh truth is, Science tends towards energy and matter not being possibly created in any way. Nothing lost, nothing created, everything transformed.

If you assume the Big Bang will someday come to a Big Crunch, and assume the reaction needed for the Big Bang will someday join back together once the original reaction is over, then another Big Bang will occur, since all the same elements will be joined once again.

Note that gravity itself tends towards objects joining up again.

[1tabligh]

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

[Xgya2000]

The reaction can be partly analyzed. What can ba analyzed leads to those hypothesis.

I say here the word "hypothesis", as in "not a theory yet". It does not have sufficient data yet to be categorized as such, but the data acquired as of yet tends towards this.

Do not forget sometimes it is much easier to see the bigger picture than see it's smallest parts.

[1tabligh]

Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?

Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!

[Xgya2000]

To answer your first line: yes!

It's invisible, it has always been there, and it's constant everywhere: physics!

Gravity, thermodynamics, etc. are ALWAYS CONSTANT. This alone makes a great basis to figure out the big numbers.

Unknowing and unperceiving. Yes. No perception whatsoever, just simple laws of physics and a simple rock in this amazing Universe that can guarantee the success of a life.

We can't answer all questions YET. You can't answer any HONESTLY.

[1tabligh]

How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?

How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?

[Xgya2000]

It's called infinite possibilities. If the Universe respawns at some point, it means i must already have done so before, hence, the one in an infinity of chances we could exist actually spans over an infinity of possibilities.

A wise creator would not have made living creatures in a world where 99.99999999% of the available space kills them instantly (it's calle "outer space", and I may have missed a few hundred decimals)

It's simply not "wise".

[1tabligh]

The Need of the World for One Without Need

The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *****  no ***** phenomenon originates in and of itself ***** without ***** the intervention of causes and agents.

[Xgya2000]

But that does not explain who created the creator that created the one that created God.

You are ready to assume a creator has always existed but not the Universe itself. Preposterous.

Assume the circle to be the final geometric shame and that every beginning means there was an end before it, as much as if there was a beginning, there will be an end.

Talking about cause-effect: what if Big Bang/Big Crunch is the Universe's ORIGINAL state? What if it's not a reaction?

[1tabligh]

The researches of thinkers throughout the world have given them the ability to know better the powerful order of nature; the farther they advance on the path of knowledge, the more devoted they are to the principle of causality. The link between cause and effect and the principle that no phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being without a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. ...

[1tabligh]

They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.

Even prehistoric man was inclined to discover the causes of phenomena, and, in fact, philosophers derived the living concept of causality from the very nature and disposition of man before they placed it in a philosophical mould. Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we never encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, ...

[1tabligh]

an accident not arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.

What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?

Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh But how does that refute in any way the Big Bang could be the original state of the Universe?

No cause, no effect. Physics

"An object in movement's natural state is to stay in movement"

Physics led to this reaction. Ever realized something as simple as fire recombines in a few million ways every second? While there is nothing random in this, it is really difficult to pinpoint at what point one particular molecule was the way it was

See how "accident" simply comes from possibilities

[1tabligh]

God and Empirical Logic.

Matter or God?

Take your choice!

Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.

But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh "brainless" atheists vs blind theists.

I say the laws always were, and always will be.

You pretend someone that always was and always will be created them. The difference: the creator guy gives you importance.

Electrons did not produce themselves. They can't be created, science proves that. hence, they must have always been there in a different form.

[1tabligh]

God and Empirical Logic.

Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!

Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....

[1tabligh]

either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh The fact you are unable to accept the Big Bang as the original state of the Universe, and much more as a reaction to something, comes from your deep theist blindness. Better keep one eye closed than both, no?

You come from "lowly matter".

The so-called "Laws" of this world are just the way it works. They always were. Why would there be a need for someone to create them.

If you remove the NEED to be created, existence just IS.

[1tabligh]

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

The Quran 21:30

Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh simply because Atomism was invented WELL before the Qu'ran was written. (Leucippus and his student Democritus)

Someone taking an idea from somewhere else because it FITS.

Every living thing from water?!?

The Big Bang was not an explosion, but an expansion. . Of all else, it was not a single atom.

About the power to innovate... when did the Qu'ran get it's last update?

I don't give the Universe itself CREATIVITY. I give it possibilities.

[1tabligh]

Matter or God?

Take your choice!

Matter and Motion!

Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this.

Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh Matter in motion will stay in motion. simple physics.

Why would there even NEED a cause if motion was it's natural state?

If the energy deployed is sufficient, it will cause every effect know to exist.

Energy cannot be created from nothing. There had to be energy there in the first place. So had there to be matter.

Energy has proven itself to be unable to use itself up. It simply transforms to forms of energy we cannot readily use.

[bullpup1337]

@Xgya2000 the total energy in the universe is ZERO so the big bang needs zero engergy (gravity has negative energy)

[Xgya2000]

@bullpup1337 negative energy does not exist. Opposing forces do exist, but energy is by it's very nature positive. Negative energy means less than no energy. Gravity is force, calculated in newtons. Negative newtons on a force cannot exist.

[seansalvador1]

@Xgya2000

"negative energy means less than energy"

No.... no it doesn't i'm afraid. It means what it says. Negative energy.

Like antimatter.

Research exotic matter and the dirac sea.



[1tabligh]

In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh

The energy needed to start the Big Bang is the sum of every action now taking place in this universe. That mass of energy was there, but it was too concentrated at some point, and it started to expand to compensate

Once the initial expansion finishes, it will go back to being a singularity (Big Crunch)

Every action creates a reaction. Creating a new Universe means destroying an old one

Energy cannot be created. So can't matter. It was always there, just in another form

[Xgya2000]

As such, if there was a first action, that action's originator has yet to have an origin, and his origin's origin, and so on

First law of motion: Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Press it in too much, and it will expand.

Expand it too much, and it will start to unite once more.

Gravity is the force trying to unite the singularity once more (black holes)

[1tabligh]

Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh @1tabligh once again, I do not give the Universe any form of creativeness. I simply think that there are so many possibilities offered by this existence that every possible offshoot will somehow be represented. We are just one in many.

The chances we have of NOT existing randomly is simply null. I cannot claim the Universe is infinite, but following the Big Bang/Big Crunch theories, I can try to assume the timescale is. One in an infinity of possibilities, set up in an infinite world.

[1tabligh]

With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh Heat can separate molecules. So can intense gravity. Many forces uniting can actually separate the electrons and even protons from a particle, thus changing the substance itself.

Much has O2 (breathable) and O3(toxic) exist in separate environments, varying by heat levels and other substances do does hydrogen.

The fact every atom was there at the beginning does not mean it was the same elements either. It's called nuclear fision/fusion.

It actually changes the substance's nature

[1tabligh]

[In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?

[Xgya2000]

@1tabligh once the original reaction slowed down, the elements reacted with the ones that stayed near. There are no "stable" chemicals. There are stable solutions if the environment does not change, but that's it

Though being easy to stabilize, Hydrogen is one of the most common substances. All noble gases unite together quite easily.

I cannot explain why every substance has ever come to be this way, but I blame it on chance (I mean, there's water on Mars. Who would've thought)

[seansalvador1]

@Xgya2000

Please don't bother with this idiot spam artist.

He is the single most prolific cpy/paste monkey on youtube.

He is copy/pasting idiot psychobabble wrapped in psedoscientific language from Al - Islam d ot c om

It's pointless to reply, he never answers just pastes your last words and adds more phychbabble!

The ammount of times i have had to point this out is astonishing, especially seeming as the crap he spouts is inane juvenile nonsense that when broken down says nothing at all!

[Xgya2000]

@seansalvador1 thanks for the kind warning, he failed to answer my last arguments. I thus assume he gave up, but who knows, he may have just gone to harass someone less knowledgeable

[klank67]

This is rambling non-sensical garbage ... as a matter of fact, they aren't even valid questions!

[1tabligh]

Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...

[1tabligh]

God and Empirical Logic.

One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".

Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?

[klank67]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Go read some Steven Pinker before you spout off this nonsense.

[1tabligh]

Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?

[klank67]

You need to update your knowledge of evolution by natural selection based on this comment.

Also update your understanding of your own position which is 'abiogenesis' - you seem to be arguing the 'something from nothing' point'.

Lawrence Krauss very eloquently discusses the universe and it's origin, the Big Bang.

The only point you've succeeded in making is: all this is too complicated for you to understand, so it must be gods handywork.

I'm done with you now .... go read.

[1tabligh]

Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?

[seansalvador1]

@1tabligh

Stop repeating yourself!

You are the single most prolific spam copy/paste monkey on youtube and the shit you are pasting is nonsensical and easily refuted!

Why bother?

Just crawl back to your sordid little grief hole and give in! You will never understand the debate or even the shit you are copy/pasting from al islam d ot c om!



[doromri]

I too am confused with group selection, in the sense that I'm not sure all these things they mention don't follow directly from normal neo darwinian "selfish gene" selection. There is no adaptation that cannot be explained in terms of competing genes (in contrast to competing groups).

classic "group selection" can be discarded for gene selection + differential extinction.

evolvability, In my opinion, may be regarded as the differential extinction of embryo-classes.

[thesparitan]

the problem with these two is they are in too much agreement in there idea of evolution

dawkins is looking for ways to make conflict as to find a new conclusion

[SpinOfFabrications]

Like they said in the first part of this conversation, scientists disagree until the evidence comes in. It's not surprising that they agree on the the foundations of their discussion.

[thesparitan]

no thats not what I was saying. you can see that dawkins is trying to fill out what myers thinks about memes and aspects of evolution.

lol dont worry im not a creationist, Im a rabid evolution man myself. im on your team. I know how it is though there stupidity is only match by, ironical there cleverness to try and avoid the truth. What I was asking was to nuanced to be understood I guess.

[rustyrobot]

Well then, you are going to be disappointed when you find out that 99.9 percent of biologists would be in just as much agreement about evolution as these two scientists are.

[thesparitan]

ok, tell me something i dont know

[ai1888]

@rustyrobot the remaining 0.01 percent are not biologists, then.

[lamejorpersona1]

lol

[WillyDillyWillyDilly]

The coulours in the room are awful. Like puppy poo. Well, I always enjoy listening to Mr. Dawkins no matter what! He´s the man.

[GegoXaren]

man i need to get one/some DVDs of/from Dawkins, because i have seen some shows on tv [root of all evil], and rely liked them..

or maby an audio book, if there are any.. [i am diselectic]

i would have been grate to have them as legal digital downloads in ogg/Theora+Vorbis or ogg/Dirac+Vorbis or some thing...

[TheStig000]

I was thinking the same thing. I'd love some audio books to listen to in the car. If anyone knows where I can get some from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. let me know!

[braindoodle89]

Search for atheist movies on blogspot. There is a site with many free video files and some abridged dawkins audio books that are delightful as well as tons of other fun things. Check it out!

[tomio145]

Just out of intrest im dyslectic i see words as pictures, i can read perfectly but carnt spell, and even the simplest words like the, i have to think about sometimes. What is yours like?

[GegoXaren]

I read "every" letter as a sound and try to "parse" them in to sound in my head.

some sounds like "ph" "gh" "ch" "sh" are "parsed" directly in to sound...

ti works the outer way when i type, I "parse" (or rather do a lookup) sounds in to "strings"(like "would" becomes "W O U L D") that i have memorised in to text...

(I think that I have bin thinking like a Programmer for to long)

[happyinnanaimo]

You could always try your public library. They often have digital books that can be downloaded directly from their site onto your computer and put on CD's. They also have them in Mp3 format for ipods etc. Right now I'm listening to Jared Diamond's "Collapse" in my car.

[GegoXaren]

Well the problem is that mp3 is a "closed" format (IE it is not legal to use in some country's, like the US, unless you pay a license fee), so that format is a no go, What is needed is audio books to be available in OGG/Speex format so more ppl can use them.

[megamarsvin]

Well you guys probably know by now but the Richard Dawkins website (link in the profile) sells audio versions of his books. I couldn't tell you what format they're in but whatever it is I'm sure it's legal to use in the US.

[GegoXaren]

those are CD-audio-books... would have liked a DL:ebul book...

[tiove]

so unbielievably complex especially if you do not study evolution, however did pz mean that you can unintenionally induce contraints in evo. by selecting factors in the environment to control and enhance offspring survival, i know that the small part of the discuaaion but i am confused, however if i got that part right than i believe i do understand what was being said.

[LikeAPossum]

What about evolvability at the molecular level? For instance, acquirement or miRNAs in eukaryotes that brought about greater ease in which complicated genetic circuits can be evolved.

[gyromancy2]

THERE IS NO GOD!

[Falloutmoon]

But there is a devil ! He lives in Decatur Illinois I think...

[kubikmaster]

wrong, the devil lives in a white house and works in an oval office. But the Mosiach is comming to redeem the world, and his bad competitor, the industrial cain (McCain) wants to fight him....Long live mosiach and the redemption of america!

[emuholic]

good and evil exist!

[325982668]

long live rationality proof reason and logic and good luck to superstition and bronze age mythology. it'll need all the help it can get.

[jeffbrown8]

i'm grateful for this video in that it explains the mechanics of evolution to the layman..

[GustavBalderdash]

weird glow around them, probably visible intelligence

[rickdomjoao]

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahha­h!

Very very VERY nice comment!

PS: Even the chair they're sittin on are viblie intelligent!

[closedmouth]

Myers seems a bit bemused by Dawkins' rambling.

[mediteight]

This scalar field would also continuously change with time as the environment of the organism changes. I think a good first approximation (or definition) of evolvability of a genotype, would be the integral of the fitness scalar field over a sphere in genotype space, centred at the given organism. But this wouldn't distinguish between very narrow rigid evolutionary channels emanating from the organism, and a nebulous free for all of trajectories where any direction is neither great nor terrible.

[Doazic]

Why not?

[mediteight]

Consider a given sphere around the genotype, and suppose the scalar field (for a given environment) inside the sphere reveals a narrow pathway for the future possible trajectories of the genotypes. If the values for the fitness, at each point inside this pathway, are great enough, summing each fitness value inside the sphere (by taking the integral) could give the same value for a different scalar field which had no clearly directed pathways for evolvability - but which had lower values for the

[mediteight]

fitness at each point. So the integral would not give a picture of how "homogenous" the fitness scalar field was in any sphere surrounding the organism. The directional graident would tho'...

Vector calculus (maybe perhaps from fluid dynamics) would provide all sorts of well understood ways of analysing the field which could be used to characterise evolvability in different ways. Someone must surely have already researched evolvability along mathematical lines tho'... Any links anyone?

[Doazic]

Closest thing I can think of is a chapter by Dennett which talks about the derivative of fitness over genetic change as being the selection pressure, (or something like that).

I'd love to see how it works with multiple variables affecting fitness though.

[mediteight]

Many thanks for the reference - the derivative of fitness over genetic change (for a given evolutionary trajectory) would be the same as the gradient vector of the field (for a static environment). Allowing the environment to evolve does make things a little more complicated.

Me too - I'm quite surprised at how little mathematical modelling of this subject I can find by a brief google search. Must be locked away in a journal somewhere, I suspect...

[mediteight]

If a comprehensive model does along these lines does exist, I'm a little surprised I don't hear biologists refer to it a little more often. More searching required :)

[mediteight]

Expressing the genotype of each organism as a point in multidimension space is a wonderful model. Presumably, in theory at least, any given environment would produce a scalar field over space - assigning a number to each point, representing the associated "fitness" or survivability. This scalar field would presumably map out channels through the space of varying resistance, along which the trajectories of evolution could travel.