The Fifth Ape (3/5) - Richard Dawkins

[ignorantswede]

It aggravates me the way he uses the word "altruism".

[reservoirhamster]

The one looking up at 0:58 looks like William Lane Craig.

[Bergkrebs]

2:50 (^_^) Beatiful music...

[blackcreekghost]

looks like he had a gay cameraman i wonder what his reproductive success will be lmao

[JonLambert89]

"Darwin has been wrongly tainted" well now you know how Christians feel! I'm agnostic and I think Dawkins is awesome but I'm sure somebody sees that little trace of irony. Seriously though I prefer films where Dawkins focuses on evolution and biology instead of religion. Not that his views on religion aren't valid or insightful but he's more than just an atheist.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 Wha...? What are you on? Christians wrongly tainted? Have you ever read the bible all of the atrocities that "god" ordered be commited? How about all of the horrible things that people have done, throughout history, in the name of religions, to include Christianity? You're kidding, right?

[JonLambert89]

@palerider1775 That's where I disagree with atheists. Judging religion only on negative apsects. Science has just as much blood on its hands. Many scientists accept the Nobel Prize, created by the man who invented dynamite. People can read Origin of the Species and lose all value for human life, but its wrong to call the book evil. Some read the Bible and think its okay to kill in God's name. But their actions can define the book. Catcher in the Rye inspired assassination, should that define it.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 The inventor of dynamite didn't then go on to write a book about why you should oppress and/or kill groups A, B, or C. Darwin didn't either.

But somehow you bed over backwards and dive into nonsense just to compare those things to vicious, violent, racist, sexist, bronze age mythology... Please go educate yourself on the bible. Read it objectively. I promise you that you will cease your fence sitting upon doing so.

[JonLambert89]

@palerider1775 I don't follow the Bible and have no interest in reading the whole thing. I simply don't think its a very big issue. How is the argument that the Bible causes wars any different to somebody saying that Marilyn Manson or Doom caused the Columbine Massacre or that JD Salinger ordered the killing of John Lennon. Its just a book, good people will read it and find a positive message, cunts read it and find ways to justify bad things.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 1/2 Don't praise the bible if you don't know what's in it. It makes you sound foolish. The inherent fallacy in "good people" finding a positive message, is that they've got to utterly ignore the mountains of hate and vile, only selective picking out tiny nuggets of the "positive" in order to justify their conviction that "God is good". Yet somehow, they seem to love to ignore the fact that the bible says it's ALL the word of "God". The bible causes more than just war, by the way

[JonLambert89]

@palerider1775 I wasn't praising the bible to begin with. I find this belief that global Atheism will create a Utopia idiotic. And you can't just blame an ideology, it draws attention away from real people (like scientist) exploit beliefs for personal gain. If somebody reads the bible and commits a murder, the chances are they were fucked up long before. In the end ITS JUST A BOOK. Economics are more dangerous than religion, go protest the Wall Street Journal if you want to be useful.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 There's a belief that global Atheism will create a Utopia? First I've ever heard about that, dude. Give me an example of scientist exploiting beliefs for "personal gain". If you are blind to all of the things that religion has it's dirty hands on, then just state it. But stating that economics are more dangerous than religion?...really? When was the last time that genocide was committed in the name of, or as a principle of economics?

[JonLambert89]

@palerider1775 Alfred Nobel created a tool that killed many yet is commonly known only for creating the Nobel Prize. Why, when Atheists talk up science they mention advances in medicine but not bio-weapons, take pride in Apollo 11 but not the Hiroshima bomb? Thats okay because everything is imperfect. I just think its hypocritical to attack religion for (debatably) causing wars when scientists have pushed our technology so far that the human race could be wiped out with the push of a button.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 2/2 and now you continue to make the same mistake as you just were. Yes, in the advance of science, some terribly destructive things have also been created. Scientist allowed themselves to be used in the creation of certain things in exchange for being able to be part of extraordinary findings/research. What you seem to keep overlooking, though, is that scientist don't hand out ideological text along with their findings, on how or how not to use the knowledge/technology...

[JonLambert89]

@palerider1775 I highly doubt the inventors of the Atomic Bomb thought it was going to be used for anything but killing. They were out to make money for themselves and didn't care that they were exploiting irrational people. I should point out that neither WW1 or 2 were influenced by religion so no blame can be shifted to the church. But that's okay since nobody is expecting scientists to set an example on morality. But when they start giving advice on morality, they are open to criticism.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 They knew what the atomic bomb was going to be used for, to bring the war to a stop. (Aside: Are you aware that the estimated casualties, on both sides, should the U.S. had proceeded to invade mainland Japan would have been? It makes the atomic bomb look like a joke. Look it up!) Many also regretted it soon after. Please give me examples of how the scientists were exploiting irrational people. Stating that WWII, in particular, was not influenced by religion is a BIG leap of faith.

[JonLambert89]

@palerider1775 The Holocaust was religious, but the rest of WW2 had no religious basis, it was mostly revenge for WW1 as well as Imperialism. Plus it was the market crash of 1929 that helped Hitler gain power. Isn't war profiteering exploiting waring nations to sell weapons technology? And are you trying to defend US bombing of Japan? They could have ended the war through negotiations but chose to attack civilians instead. Using statistics to say that was the best option is a bit messed up.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 LOL. Are you implying that arms dealers are scientists? Goodness...

Also, both of the booms killed less than 300,000 people. A mainland invasion was estimated to have killed millions on both sides. I'm not sure what history books you're reading (if any?!), but the Japanese fascists weren't exactly the negotiate/give up kind. The plain Jane truth is that the atomic bombs (did you know that the Japanese refused to surrender after being hit with the 1st?!) was the lesser of 2 evils.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 Also, scientist don't bother dictating morality, because morality is a social construct, and thus relative, taking it very far from anything that science is concerned with. Tell me; do you believe some "god" created morality?...

[JonLambert89]

@palerider1775 Morality is a human construct and while there was most likely no god that created it, religion had a big hand in shaping it. Religion is an early attempt by mankind to install law and order. Its become obsolete but that doesn't make it dangerous. Parts of religion encourage violence and oppression but then again so did/do many laws created with no religious basis. When scientists start pinpointing a cause of societies problems, that is taking an interest in morality.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 Yeah. Religion had a big part in shaping it, alright! What religion did to morality was shut it off, in the minds of people, by making them believe that there was some supreme being doing all of the tough thinking for them, so that they could massacre, rape, and pillage, without having to give it a second thought. Religion was not about law and order, it was about a few megalomaniacs convincing their followers that their's was THE way. Scientist or not pointing these things out...

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 ...seems more like a human responsibility. People are being misled by this nonsense, and yet, someone who supposedly takes the position of fence sitting wants to jump down and take the side religious immorality? What a backwards world we live in...

[JonLambert89]

@palerider1775 Okay, I'm not going to be a wanker and block you but I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I don't mind if you have the last word but this will be mine. When a man makes a documentary about the negative effects of religion on society and calls it The Root of All Evil, they are voicing an opinion on morality.

[palerider1775]

@JonLambert89 *bend,I meant

[reghin79]

3:34

Not "altruism", but rather a sort of, and I can't stress this enough, sort of: "utilitarianism" = maintaining the herd intact and parasite free for self preservation purposes. It has nothing to do with the decietful notion of "altruism", which is a large brain man's rationalization, one of which religious thinkers and moral philosophers speak extensively.

No gift is free. We give in order to receive and some of us are very conflicted about this APPARENTLY individualistic notion.

[3234718]

I want a brain in a jar. It'll be a conversation piece

[dragonup56]

i think killing all people with birth defects is better

[SorryStamin]

@dragonup56 Well, not really, limiting the number of children? Probably a better solution.

[zzzzzz69]

3:26 Alan! Alan! Alan!

[zzzzzz69]

@zzzzzz69 make that 3:25

[ZachRose88]

So, in this same as peahens, women essentially breed men. All women should hear and understand this so they stop complaining about how "guys are assholes", etc.

[rune2h13579]

a brain in a bucket... thats new...

[S24995]

It's weird to think about something(evolution) "creating" something else(rednecks/christians/repub­licans) that doesn't believe in it. A scientific study needs to discover how that's possible.

[Spydermike268]

@S24995 We don't need to study it. It's a simple matter of thinking. "Lack of Natural Selection" - they have no motivation to use their brains therefore they don't. However lumping republicans into that group is unfair, as there are many rational moderate republicans. There are just as many Extreme liberals as there are extreme conservatives. It might be better to say Extremists, rather than merely republican.

[juanarruti]

tig bitties

[jeanfou1]

"These women want to become mothers through a sperm donor". The SAME one?!?!?

[C4H7NO4]

@jeanfou1 Not unheard of...

[jeanfou1]

@C4H7NO4 Seriously? I was joking.

[titodelibero]

Mr. P. Cock Rules! \m/ _._ /m\

[mes179]

4:50 Dawkins is like " I can't believe you have a brain in a jar."

[KenMacMillan]

Those ugly bitches had to go to a sperm bank because they couldn't get the men they want in real life.

[KenMacMillan]

Hitler was a pantheist. Social Darwinism was mainly based on Lamarckian evolution so a more accurate name would be Social Lamarckianism.

[jumpnjza2]

Eugenics lead to genocide in Bosnia? What's he on about?

[shnosmas]

somebody get the part with naked cowboy as a clip

[colombus66]

Ethnic genocide, it sounds a lot like the bible and it was written long before darwin was born.

[mmmmmarcus]

Damn you, naked cowboy!

[Rahavin1]

ugg-- I had to watch that dumb Ben Stein film which tried to state that evolutionists, by "doctrine" were all Nazis... he had an interview with Dawkins and forced him to admit that god was POSSIBLE (if not slimly).

Then Stein went on to claim that Dawkins admitted God was probable, and called him a nazi if he disagreed... I hate Ben Stein. Hes the nazi...

[Kirbynessness]

Awesome channel, I love the transitions

[ImperiousViking]

look at me, I've got a brain in a bucket :P

[Shavarnarak]

Here's a good argument against eugenics, that just hit me.

Stephen Hawkings.

Brilliant, but physically defective. Which just goes to show that eugenics isn't a good idea. Because the world is better having him around I think!

So instead cyborging all the way! Upgrade what we have, and do it far beyond what eugenics ever could! It's good to improve humanity, but I say cyborgs are the way of the future. Not eugenics.

[christo930]

That stupid bitch is wearing a wedding ring and is looking for a sperm donor?

[AtheistBrit]

Maybe her husband is infertile and they agreed a sperm donor would be a way for them to have a child? I wouldn't call her a "stupid bitch" before you know her reasons.

[mazdaplz]

that hairy guy was in nova science now on pbs, he's genius

[undisputedgreatest]

Dawkins has an awesome sense of humor.

[TylerBoBylerFyler]

LOVE the intro music and the close up on the womans wedding band at the end. Priceless.

[elipto]

lol those women want richards sperm!

:-)

[wowpapa]

So, the fact that Hitler occasionally referenced Christianity is not necessarily a sign of personal religious fervor (nor is it an indication of religious sanction). There is no compelling reason to believe it to be anything more than the same cynical ploy used by most leaders to appeal to the deepest passions of their people at critical moments regardless of the inconsistency that their national goals may have with religious teachings.

[yocanbanconit]

I've always wondered why birds are unable to catch butterflies. We see them easily, but birds see insects better than us, right? When I've seen birds chasing butterflies they get close but can't grab them. I think the color, pattern and movement of the wings confuses the bird. Butterflies are bright, colorful and flashy, like the peacock. If birds could catch them then they wouldn't exist. I wonder if predators are put off by the Peacock's plumage. Evolution can also work in mysterious ways.

[gagaplex]

I don't know about birds but I know that some predators (like other insects) are driven off when they see the patterns on butterflies' wings. Some of them resemble faces or eyes and the predator can be scared away by what looks like an even bigger predator.

[AcanLord]

yeah its really interesting. there are similar defense mechanisms in the ocean. most seem to be for dumfounding or confusing predators. Like the bioluminescence of many cnidarians and certain arthropods. and then theres the rather Bizarre strategy used by Holothuroids "sea cucumbers" by which they sort of eviscerate themselves. just imagen the look passers by like some random cuttlefish or something get when it happens. ""Cuttlefish: ......wtf..?""

[userwl2850]

bet the owner of that brain wasn,t a christion, it,s way 2 large.

[oliverdavidanderson]

He could probably spell though, idiot.

[Rokuns]

@userwl2850 Lmao that was good!

[2plus2is9]

Hello I'm Steven Pinker. Welcome to my office. Here you will find many books and some dude's BRAIN!

[TheWildAssCopyCat]

Cool, I didn't expect to see Steven Pinker in this video... He is another bright soldier in our fight for reason and rationality...

^..^

[BrucedatNigga]

@TheWildAssCopyCat

lol

you're amusing

[TheWildAssCopyCat]

I like Steven Pinker, he is a smart guy... I like to read and heard what smart people have to say... I guess I really shouldn't be surprised to see him here being that he is well known for advocating evolutionary psychology... It just kinda caught me off guard...

^..^

[AtheistBrit]

Dawkins has a great sense of humour, doing his lines about sexual selection next to a human "strutting peacock". Wonderful!

[planetdarwin]

All you need to do when someone compares natural selection to eugenics, is point out the word "natural". Nature selects by fitness to the environment. This is an unbiased and mindless process. Eugenics programs devised by humans are not "natural"; they are mindful and biased, as the selection process is given the conscious deliberations of whoever controls it, whether good or bad, fair or unfair. It's clearly the factor of acute deliberation which is horrific, not the selection process itself.

[sulthus]

At 8:29 you can tell richard dawkins is trying so hard not to laugh.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel

[jazzx251]

The chump who invented eugenics was on the right lines.

He's clearly defective and it would be better if he was never born at all.

[BOBofGH]

Naked Cowboy part was so ingenious

[Averilli1]

HA HA HA HA that cowboys a human peacock lol!

[mannieTFormers]

@Averilli1 LMAO!!!! XDD

[dawkinschannel]

Okay. Let's stop our conversation wich you started on my channel. It doesn't make sense to continue. And above that, I've got much nicer things to do with my time.

It's obvious we both have another definition of science and that's a pity, but I can't change your view and you can't change mine.

[dawkinschannel]

You believe in a god, I don't because there's no (scientific) evidence for it. You think there is, I think there isn't. And I just believe the big majority of scientists rather than I believe you or an old book.

If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, fine! Go on with it, but don't bother me with that nonsense. I think it's much much older. If you believe Jesus came alive after dead, fine! Go on with it, but don't bother me with that crap.

[dawkinschannel]

If you believe you go to heaven because it's written in the bible or because you feel it, great! Congratulations. But I don't believe in an afterlife. I prefer to live at this moment and love my girl and friends while they're alive. I prefer to enjou life and to be happy. I don't need a god or a book of fairytales for that. It's clear you don't know what evolution is, when you call it fairy tales. If you believe that, fine! But again, don't bother me with that ignorance...

[dawkinschannel]

I'm very very very glad I'm not educated by the indoctrination you are. Cause then I'd be talken just like you're doing and that seems to me a very frustrated, narrow minded way full of anger. If you want to keep doing that, fine. But for the last time: don't spam it on my channel. Thank you very much.

[splendorfulguris]

HAHAHAH the cowboy. smart americans always enter the picture don't they.

[flurble33]

lol, brokeback comes to new york.

[badmashabhi]

wtf was this the cowboy ... lol !!!

[nbcooler022]

lol @ the macho cowboy

[mellielli]

ooo, where can I get one of those cowboys?:D

[xnewmanx34]

Haha, It is clear all life forms did not undergo gradual change? Umm, I do believe you may need to educate yourself further. Just because we don't know EXACTLY how every species came to be doesn't mean we WON'T. Research genetics and shut the door on the religious bullshit you have been spoon fed, you child.

[xnewmanx34]

The possibility for a predatory organism to be metazoan, would indicate that predecessor had been around for millions of years. Again, educate yourself. Quit listening to what you want to hear, listen to what it actually is. Your Cambrian explosion bullshit makes it look like you know what you are talking about, your shear ignorance for what is Science shows otherwise. The God you will die for, is a God made up by a man who just wanted to have answers like yourself. I will see you in the dirt.

[faki49]

This is the irrationality which darwinism ends up in. The entire world just happened and is just happening. Forget the science and just go and do what you want. Where as the entire universe has a fine tuning according to science, every human cell has a magnificence in its structure. And when we go to the human brain only the most mental person will ever dispute the phenomenal excellence in neuronal network design and complexity.

[xnewmanx34]

I'm not arguing the complexity of the brain, doesn't mean there is a God bud, that is more unscientific then anything. Your knowledge on DNA is presumably the same as your knowledge of Evolution, minimal. And if you don't believe that there are ANY transitional fossils, your a moron for not educating yourself before trying to debate it...But I'm still waiting for you to Answer Mells questions on the whole Dog thing you so gladly passed by...please enlighten us with your vast array of knowledge.

[faki49]

A single DNA is enough to fill a million pages. And this is not a million pages of bullshit. ITs a million pages of the most perfect information required for a nice looking human being who can reason, move, feel, and all other wonders. Like I said darwinism is a chaotic theory without evidence. No transitional fossils, imaginary hypothesis and finally unscientific.

[SLRL1A1]

They absolutely did "slowly come into what they are". There are plenty of pre-cambrian faunas with abundant evidence of the lineage of cambrian animals.

[greycloud24]

yes i do. and thanx to evolution i am not blind. just like my parents i have eyes and the ability to see. just like your parents you seem to have inherited a fear of truth.

[xnewmanx34]

How blind?

 Isn't blindness the basis of your faith... you don't seem to be against being hypocritical do you?

[mellielli]

So how do you explain all the different breeds of dogs? There are such breeds today as did not exist in Darwin's time or that were very different from the ones today. And what about butterflies, which mutate into darker forms on industrial areas, a phenomenon that one person can record during their lifetime, a.k.a. witness with their own eyes. But judging by your post you'll not be too keen on proof and good arguments, so just forget what I just said.

[faki49]

In order to have a moth turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes." So Melli open your eyes. Moths did not mutate into new moths. Both types of moths already existed.

[mellielli]

Ok, I give you the moth, although I don't fully agree with your view. But you didn't explain the different breeds of dogs. You must admit that some dogs, outwardly at least (I'm not an expert on dog physiology), seem like completely different species, and some breeds have characteristics the others do not share. I would love to hear your view on that if you have any good arguments against it.

[faki49]

Isnt that just intra-species variation?? Same as intra-species variation within humans. There have been human races which are now existent which had different characteristics from us. All this is natural variation within species. Humans today also exist in variant forms. Eskimos, aborigines, in my country from there are upto 40 different african tribes with different characteristics. SO? that doesnt mean humans came from a monkeyish ancestor.

[faki49]

I meant: There have been human races which are now EXTINCT which had different characteristics from us. This doesnot mean we were a different species. ITs simply different RACES with slightly different morphologies existing at different times.

[xnewmanx34]

Intra-species variation requires a mutation of some sort to provide that species with a characteristic of its environment, thus the species would need to slightly evolve. You said that species hadn't changed and that we all came 'as is'. So how could a species suddenly change after the fact without evolution.Natural variation supports evolution. Argument over, Go kill yourself in the name of Allah, next time don't put the airbag on.

[faki49]

ITs that GOD created different variety within a species. Different breeds existing within a species doesnt give evidence at all of one species becoming another. For that you need a proper line of individual species changing their morpholgy within the chain connecting the two species.

[mellielli]

Now, the most important definition of a species is that members of that species can breed with each other and produce offspring that also can breed. Did you know that if you take all different types of arctic tern, the colonies that live next to another can inter-breed, but when you go further away, they can't breed with each other. They sort of form a chain over the arctic in which every type of tern can breed with its neighbour but the ones further apart can't. Can you explain why this is?

[mellielli]

I'm really frustrated because I can't find that article anymore either... nevertheless my point was that a 'species' is a tricky term: imagine the arctic terns form a chain around the arctic area like this: 1234567890 and then it comes back to 1. Now number 1 can breed with numbers 2 and 0, possibly even 3 and 9, but not with 4, because the different colonies, in the different areas have evolved differently, and have become incompatible.

[mellielli]

But number 3 can breed with both 1 and 4, so it's still the same species. Where does the one species end and the next begin? Nowhere, because a 'species' is a man-made concept. And they can all evolve and become different 'species'. I'm sorry but if there really is some sort of divine planner, he could've done a better job at this planning.

[NaturalPhenomenon15]

You say that a new species can not be formed from another one; care to back up your hypothesis with EVIDENCE?

lol

[NaturalPhenomenon15]

Haha, keep being idiotic!

That's great.

Poster child for creationisim.

[NaturalPhenomenon15]

faki49 after further reading your comments, I wonder if you have actually read a book by Richard Dawkins?

(Or any book on evolution)

You sure know nothing about it.

[Hedphelym]

i wish this was on discovery channel or something rather than me having to get it from the internet -.-

[hitterbrehm]

02:44, what a beautiful scene.

[my254TV]

amazing, i wish the whole world would hear this and not just shrug it off as not religious stuff!

[vassekb]

first view! Woop!