Why is it so hard for creationists to understand that there is no 'goal' of evolution as a mechanism, just as there's no 'goal' for gravity... They can't get out of this mishap of anthropomorphizing everything around them. Next they will be asking why the sky doesn't have emotions....
CEOs are human beings, and like all human beings, some are good and some are bad. But despite this, I'm quite dislike the conservative reverence and admiration for the rich, and the approach to policy that seeks to protect the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class. And I certainly dislike the application of evolution as some twisted way of legitimizing the ruthlessness often often in the acquisition of wealth, and making it into a virtue.
CEO's work very hard and make great sacrifices? AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
There rich brats let OTHERS work hard and sacrifice for them. THEY push some papers around, have huge long vacations, have fancy expensive lunches with fancy drinks and hand themselves huge bonusses even if they fuck up and destroy the company, and even if they have to take the bonusses out of tax money, which they can, because they buy politics.
I mean seriously, I know this video's not about that. But when that little twerp talked about what hero's CEO's are I just lost it. Who the fuck actually believes that bullshit, other then some of those dimwitted randroids? Everyone else knows those upper class fuckers are mostly just crooks and liars who make gobs of money over the rest of societies backs, whilst barely lifting a finger if ANY themselves.
Also, why are the skin variations among Native Americans, who inhabited Alaska to Cape Horn, so much fewer than the much greater skin type variety in Africa, Europe and Asia, where the same dfferences in climate exist? One group (Americans) arrived much more recently (< 20,000 years) in the Americas than those in Africa, Europe and Asia (1 million to 250,000 years ago), and display less skin type variation. This suggests that they needed longer to evolve distinct skin pigments than that time.
Notice that the hotter the climate, the more pigment in the skin. Equatorial Africans, probably the hottest place on earth, are pitch black (as are Australian Aboriginals). North Africans/Middle Eastern/Southern Europeans have tanned skin. Native Americans had tanned skin. Southern Asians have yellowish pigment. But Northern Europeans/Asians and Inuits/Eskimos are pure white with no skin pigment to protect against the sun, because it barely affects them there. The position on the globe did this.
Why dod God create black people and white people? I've lived for months in Nigeria and months in Germany. Believe me, being black in Nigeria is an advantage, because of the intensity of the sun on the equator. Being white in Germany is an advantage, against frostbite. And whites have narrower noses because it warms the air more than a broad nose before it reaches the lungs. Nobody can tell me that God knew this and created it this way - natural selection did, over hundreds of millenia.
All the players in nature are working for their own survival but at the same time do not realize it. That is what makes evolution what it is. Every living thing involved in a war against all others and not even knowing it. Some life forms are flawed to a max and have to change, or happen to change through natural selection. While others were golden for thousands of years. I almost wounder if our tech will stop us from advancing genetically in the future?
it is my opinion, that supernatural belief is why we still, in this day, as a majority, live in squalor, pestilence, fear, hunger, and pain. it is self imposed guilt taken from scripture that has caused us to stay here on hell/earth, instead of believing that we can rise up. think im wrong? look around your planet. just tribes upon tribes of people that never broke free from superstition, and oppressive governments recongnise and use this exploitative method still today. Pharoahs exist, still
@Morgethein To define a forest with the shortcomings of emotional human thought and ego is an error. There is no argument. The forest develops and exists in accordance to its integral balance. Ecosystems are not about competition. Each part interacts with the other to create balance.
@NewHangUps They are actually. However, you must realize competition and equilibrium are not two concepts that exclude one another, they are not distinct. Nash equilibrium is a theory worth investigating. Though not capturing the complete picture, there is the deception of species working together (e.g. clownfish + sea anemone) to gain a benefit in fitness.
@avdmeers To suggest there is "competition" in a forest is a misunderstanding. A plant adapts to its conditions, it does not fight. Just as a river does not compete against the bank....Water naturally flows to find the lowest point, there is not competition with high or low.The forest is constantly changing all parts work together as they find themselves, in each new manifestation. Constant change is the only constant.
@NewHangUps You have a misunderstanding of what competition implies. It's all about natural selection and which species can adapt the best (and fastest). Those that adapt best are the best competitors, they don't hold pokemon deathmatches. Natural selection does not apply to a river... The forest working together? Change occurs by natural causes (wheather, mutation, ...) and competition occurs, those able to best adapt gain the higher ground. Those not, struggle and become extinct.
I have found something that I disagree with in this particular video. Not necessarily with the ideas but with the delivery. Around 3:40 Dawkins is explaining to the Bishop that evolution has no goals (which is true) and that it just changes, which is vaguely reminiscent of the creationists description of the beginning of the world, "God just made it." I think Dawkins was merely stating it this way for the sake of simplicity but, at the same time, that is a very misleading statement.
it answers every question, religion leaves so many pieces of the puzzle out and you're left more confused than you were when you didn't know anything. there is no goal, animals and humans aren't trying to reach anything, we're trying to evolve and survive. that's it. it's when you strip away everything that makes us a part of the animal kingdom, build buildings, systemise everything including food gathering and education, that's when you get people who lose sight of the animals we really are
You know.. creationism doesnt believe in evolution... fine. But creationism has evolved into "intelligent design" thus disproving itself... craziness huh?
@faithisfiction i was just thinking that..perfect example of the primitive man who still doesn't understand evolution and thinks he is above every other living thing.......
I like how Richard Dawkins explains it using the triangle with his hands. Whenever I talk to creationists, 90% of them will make that argument and I wanna explain to them very simply so they understand and I use the exact same hand gestures to help them understand something that should be trivial but, unfortunately, is not.
@izaccy that's our goal, but evolution so far as the universe doesn't care wether we survive or even copulate, just like gravity, evolution has no goal.
could you immagine, a world like "the lion king" story?
freaks of nature like humans can, because we shouldnt exist at all...humanity is a story of a completely crippled society
the only answer is cataclysmic events, found crippled individuals favorable for the time, fewer preditors.. bipedal apes, can make tools to hunt, because they have to, and fewer preditors makes survivability,thus create community because it is hard, send your ass into a jungle bare naked today and you will be food
0:56 omg the handshake! its like the secret password or something haha sorry it just made me laugh pretty hard, because it was a black guy that did it - and richard looked like he was just "wtf?"
it makes sense that Dawkins attacks religion. Religion and Evolution can both be seen as theories; take Evolution, there are thousands upon thousands of sources that support the theory of evolution. But, what about religion? Evolution has my vote.
Survival of the fittest when applied to evolved apes = Business / Capitalism / Private ownership. Now I got the clear idea why Marx wants social equality. Thumbs up!!
@dawkinschannel Its not funny at all. Dawkins suggests we should not believe in God, astrology, phycic ability, homeopathy, etc, because they are not scientifically validated These things do have a worth and benefit to millions of people
But what does he say about the economic system which is based on imaginary trading, speculation and not even real money
He doesn't say anything. But that system creates war, and famine It destroys peoples lives, houses are repossessed because of imagined events
@dawkinschannel If Dawkins was truly interested in "saving and enlightening the common person" he would expose the corrupt economic system, not wast his time being angry about a God he can not comprehended, and spiritual matters that he is blind too. He would not tar every aspect of religion with the same brush. He would recognise the quality and worth of that which benefits people.
@Kingfillins go and live in the jungle like our ancestors did, without technology or shelter, and then tell me if it is not a dog eat dog world out there...we are always in competition..as humans the things we compete for are different because we are more advance (ex. Jobs, the market, school etc) and those fields even science are dog eat dog...
@TomValedro It makes you sad, we chimps get sad too. So I guess that is evidence of elemental evolution. No wait horses get sad too, and dogs, that means we must have evolved from every species that gets sad.
But that is not a joke. Consciousness and emotions are universal.
How is it that non related spices can experience sadness and joy? What does evolution say about the emotions of species?
the fact that they have to hide the bones shows that they know that we evolved yet dont want to admit it because ego and some because they would maybe lose money from their sheep
It astounds me that people still ask "Why are there still apes if we evolved from them?" This only proves that no fundamentalist has ever read a single sentence about evolution. It is willful ignorance at it's worst.
i pity him... for generation, those who dont accept religion is killed ... he just feel save if he have religion... if you a islamic country.. you wont worry that a islamic militant going to kill u.. you might be worry that a christian militant or terrorist.
So according to Dawkins Evolution Is an instant that happens but the focus is on the current life as opposed to the entire system developed around it.
Much as similar to The Four seasons on Earth, One says What is the point of winter transition to spring? There is no point, we as many animals have adapted to revolve around the system that exists.
Dawkins should be more clear with the bishop. I would answer: until now we were heading indeed toward bigger heads (among other transformations) but maybe from now on, being gradually substituted by computers, we will evolve in a different direction, toward smaller brains that have different qualities than the present and ancient brains.
@FaaarLeft More Blacks vs Whites yes. A lot of Asians look more like Chimps and Bonobos too...Black Africans are the original human of the African Ape family so yes... :)
@LauraKathleen05 This doesn't explain facial structure though. I wonder if appearance was seen by cultures in africa as a less disirable sexual trait than physiological vivacity.
@FaaarLeft Yeah it was probably only a secondary thing which wasnt as important at the time. A nice strong esthetically pleasing build would probably be most important as it would be a display of healthy strong genes
@FaaarLeft Not quite. First of all "black" or "white" are not races. Even amongst African "black" people there are tribes like the Khoisan -- who have mixed features of asian, european and african facial structures. Asian people have a certain facial structure that may seem apelike to some people, but some European races have that too. We're all human, and we're all the same.
@adi87tya I think you can call it races, at least varieties. We have some special adaptations to where we live. Black skin in countries with lot's of sun and white in those with less for example. But we are very similar so calling us races may be wrong, for now at least.
@FaaarLeft I would twist that around and say that while it is probably true morphologically, if there is a psycho-physical parallelism, there can be no doubt that apes are less harmful to other apes than man has been to man. Therefore the same would hold true for black Africans, and conversely, the white man, more removed from his primal state, is thus more cruel, ruthless, unempathetic, and alien to the rest of mankind.
I believe that Richard Dawkings mistaken when he says that evolution is not a goal! I believe that the theory itself is based on the evidence that nature always has a goal.
The goal of evolution is to make living being better to survive in the environment which the creature lives in.
But ok evolution has no final goal, unless you see reproduction as a goal.
@elipto we look different due to genetic mutations which are essential to the survival of the species, these mutations such as skin colour,hair texture,and eye colour are determined by enviromental factors and the genes are passed down to future descendants.
@elipto you know it would be ignorant to think that there is only one type of ape...as to there being only one type of race in human....well that becomes obvious because we see all that divercity....so "man is made in god's immage" hmmm...lets take a look at what immage people give god in all races...hmmm....oh i know, god looks like the race of the person that came up with the bullshit....ahhhh...that alone should challenge indoctrinated assholes...but nah, it doesnt work that way...does it
@elipto Why the fuck does chimps and the oragotang look different? Because they are different smartazz... We just got a common ancestor. Thats the link between us and them.
I agree with you on certain points about nothing being good and evil. However there are acts that are either beneficial or detrimental for a single person or a group of persons. As social creatures we label things as good or evil based on morales we have developed over our existence. An act that benefits the group, tends to be favored as opposed to one that endangers them. Sadly this is a very basic explanation to how morales evolved but with limited text it's the best I can do.
Evil is a human constructed concept that describes an act of cruelty onto others that inflicts suffering, pain, misery and death. If you believe in God, then you must believe that God invented evil so God is capable of evil so shut the fuck up.
"You have to borrow God's morality in order to judge Him with it. If there is no God, there is no evil, and your words are meaningless."
Morality doesn't come from god, its something you come to understand as you grow up. Its like saying we can't be "moral" without religion and we all know that's a bullshit statement. As I said, Evil is a construct to describe actions onto someone else. God has no moral sense and that's proven when you read the Bible. Kill yourself.
It's amazing, yet predictable, how the human mind will take evolution, without hindsight or foresight, with a grain of salt. People, wake up...our economic system is made up...we made it up...producing results of "artificial selection" if you will.
Humans are group animals.....we don't weed each other out, we've just been grouped as such, and by a flawed system, at that. Evolution is a slow process....
really why dont you thanks god for the genocide of billions of people throughtout human history, thank god for the catastrophes than people have been subjected to throught war , you are a stupid fucking idiot, there IS NO GOD GET OVER IT , your just saying god was responsible for evolution so you dont sound like a fucking retard becuase evolution has been proven already , faggot asshole
@CaffeinatedBum I've never understood that. Some creationist's argument is athiests are arrogant. Well, whether they are or not doesn't mean they're wrong.
Ya know, you can say "evolution doesn't have a goal, and this is true, but predictions could be made as to where it may lead next. Only problem is that Natural selection is being tempered somewhat by our modern society in that the weak are helped to survive. This is moral, but slows evolution. I would need much more than the space allowed to lay out where evolution may lead us and why. Suffice to say, whatever traits make individuals or groups succeed will thrive.
Thats so funny my verification code was "watermelon":) This was just after I replied with "So is a water mellon and a raincloud, So?"
Here is the problem I have with the "common ancester theory" If on one 1 branch it loses strength and on the orther branch it loses smarts then how did it gain?
Heres another one How many differant types of monkies do we have? How differant types of man do we have?
Evolution by natural selection doesn't necessarily mean animals will get bigger and stronger and smarter. You may think so but no.
It's just survival, change that benefits survival in any way will be retained because it will be passed on. If that means because it got smaller to slip away from predators, or more muscles to allow better tree climbing whatever.
I hope that answers your question.
Cheers!
P.S. Your thinking of man as his own animal or group but actually we are classified as monkeys.
I do not argue that we are beyond in scale what any animal has done before us.
But that doesn't change our features and traits that closely link us with the primates. We are animals, it is not meant to be a demeaning thing accepting this nor does it belittle our progress as a socially advanced cultural organism. I was just point out that we don't have different types of monkeys and different types of "man" we have different types of monkeys of which humans happen to be a branch.
by classification i am assuming you mean why we are classified as apes? that`s very simple. Its been known for a VERY long time. the reason why we are classified as such is for the same reason everything else is classified as they are, Because of morphological anatomical traits. As soon as you attempt to fully describe the physical traits of a human, you automatically end up describing the physical traits of a primate. More specifically a type of ape.
i believe i can answer your question for you. :) You see, Natural selection does not place value on what is good or bad by our standards. the only thing it does is permit favorable traits in all things being passed on. what is favorable however, changes from situation to situation depending on different things. Sometimes that means being smarter, and not necessarily stronger, sometimes the reverse. the great white sharks ancestor was huge, but natural selection shrunk it.
I believe there is something to this "animals getting smaller thing", and this still does not mean that one type of animal can tranform into a differant type of animal, do see what I mean?
Yes jesuskopp. But your missing something. Evolution actually does NOT permit organisms to transform into a different type. The model creationists use when they are talking about evolution is quite often a false one, and is rather silly. The real evolutionary model is rather different then what you probably think it is.
If you like, i can explain how evolution actually works. Its really not so hard to understand when you have the right people try to explain it to you. The notion of "kind into another kind" is bogus and comes from a failure to recognize how evolutionary lines of decent actually operate. This, purported "transformation" into something fundamentally different never occurs.
To further elaborate on the statement of the shark. Megalodon was truly massive. Maybe by our standards this is "better" but this is not necessarily so in certain situations. For example.. When Large numbers of big prey becomes scarce, a bigger body may tend to become a disadvantage because you would require more food. Natural selection in the presence of this problem would favor Offspring which are smaller. Smaller mating offspring eventually results in a smaller species.
Where's your scientific proof that they're not the same? And in what way do you mean "not the same"? They're the same species, the only difference is skin colour which is as minor a change as hair colour or eye colour.
Black, White or any other races of humans are different at some level, but same can be said for one white person to the next. But we are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent similar. If that's enough to call the different races each others cousins then so be it.
Personally I find that it's more worthwhile to focus on similarities rather than differences, and not just because what we have in common is overwhelmingly greater.
Often, we look at "the others" (no matter what our differences...race, religion, sex, nationality, taste in music or beer) as somehow less friendly and treat them differently as compared to "our own".
That's not true. There is more genetic variation within races than between races, meaning that any two people of the same race are likely to be more genetically different than any two people of different races. Don't use scientific ideas you don't understand to promote racism and racial superiority. It's been done before.
You are 100% right! It is so surprising how many people really believe race is classifiable through biology and genetics. As for as science goes, all humans are 99.9% the same. We are a very homogeneous species. I wish this was taught more because some people really believe that race is biological, when indeed it is social.
You are an idiot. Blacks and whites along with any other human "race" are 99.9% identical. You trying to make differences base on physical appearances. But there is no biological or genetic bases for race. Humans including blacks are all completely homogeneous. Also many of scientist have try to prove race through science, but could not. Race is a social concept. The physical difference you see between "races" are insignificant compare to the genetic material all humans share. Don't be ignorant.
oliverdavidanderson and ericaj58: First let me say that I wholeheartedly support your stand against the crude use of pseudoscientific conceptions of race as a means of justifying racial discrimination. However, I'm afraid you're not getting the science exactly right. If you'll step back from the hypersensitive political ramifications of the debate for a moment, I think you'll agree it's actually obvious that there must be a genetic basis for race, once the term "race" is responsibly construed.
In the 60,000 years since modern Homo sapiens left its ancestral homelands in East Africa, populations of humans settled in regions with a high degree of mutual isolation. Although there was probably some gene flow throughout the prehistoric human world, its rate was probably very low, giving virtual genetic isolation. As occurs in all species, geographically isolated subpopulations will tend to diverge in accordance with the selective pressures of their own particular environments.
These differential selection pressures operated long enough to produce some striking divergences in the soft, fleshy, outward-facing parts of the body (which are more easily adaptable than our internal organs because far fewer bodily systems depend on them). Even our skeletons have been slightly affected (East Asian populations tend on average to have thinner skulls than Northern European populations, for instance). In this context, "race" does have a precise biological meaning:
It is simply the geographical classification of the ancestral subpopulation from which the majority of one's ancestors come if we trace her lineage back to pre-technological times (when travel and immigration were exceedingly rare events). In this precise sense, everyone is happy to recognize that race has a genetic basis when medical issues depend on it. Sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease are two well-known examples. Outside of medicine, this obvious fact is now a taboo of the educated.
Certain genetic mutations in populations are a result or consequence of natural selection. Carriers of the Sickle Cell trait have better protection against malaria. In these individuals, malaria will not be as invasive. Carriers of Tay-Sachs gives better protection against tubercolis. It is important to note many genetic mutations are not harmful or helpful. In cases of Sickle Cell and Tay-Sachs it becomes harmful when the child is able to receive these gene mutation from both parents.
The important thing about races from the biological point of view is that they are unimportant. Since all contemporary humans can potentially interbreed, geographic divergence has not had enough time to speciate us, and now that those geographic barriers have been largely removed by technology, the trend will likely be toward greater uniformity in the future. I welcome that. As for the observation that genetic variation is greater within populations than between them, that's true but irrelevant:
Ok, I dont get it, why are we the fifth ape? There are chimps, gorillas, orangutans, ??? and humans. What du I miss? Or do I get it all wrong?
Akka225 5 days ago
Wow, that bishop was a very simple minded individual
keasy84 5 days ago
Humanity's evolution is beginning to change us again and separate us as misinformation of Religion will pool their genes in a separate direction.
PrincessTS01 6 days ago
@PrincessTS01 That's an interesting thought, actually.
SeedsOfHatred 3 hours ago
Asking what the goal of evolution is is like asking what the goal of erosion is.
NorthCitySider 1 week ago
if we are made in the image of god then god is an ape
albert12256 1 month ago
Shouldn´t christians honor their parents/ancestors instead of denying them?!
ptango666 1 month ago
death is the center of religion. people are so afraid to die that it makes them believe stupid shit.
GODLESS24 1 month ago
Humans denying their roots are like kids in embarrasment of their parents at school
USMarineRifleman0311 1 month ago
Why is it so hard for creationists to understand that there is no 'goal' of evolution as a mechanism, just as there's no 'goal' for gravity... They can't get out of this mishap of anthropomorphizing everything around them. Next they will be asking why the sky doesn't have emotions....
OrthodoxDarwinist 2 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist
whats funnier is how they always want to have the answers now and on demand, and those answers have to consistently tie into everything else.
USMarineRifleman0311 1 month ago
Dawkin's religion is socialism...
coturnix19 2 months ago
CEOs are human beings, and like all human beings, some are good and some are bad. But despite this, I'm quite dislike the conservative reverence and admiration for the rich, and the approach to policy that seeks to protect the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class. And I certainly dislike the application of evolution as some twisted way of legitimizing the ruthlessness often often in the acquisition of wealth, and making it into a virtue.
Ashiman12 2 months ago
CEO's work very hard and make great sacrifices? AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
There rich brats let OTHERS work hard and sacrifice for them. THEY push some papers around, have huge long vacations, have fancy expensive lunches with fancy drinks and hand themselves huge bonusses even if they fuck up and destroy the company, and even if they have to take the bonusses out of tax money, which they can, because they buy politics.
Fuck CEO's, all of them.
TheSkunkCat 2 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
I mean seriously, I know this video's not about that. But when that little twerp talked about what hero's CEO's are I just lost it. Who the fuck actually believes that bullshit, other then some of those dimwitted randroids? Everyone else knows those upper class fuckers are mostly just crooks and liars who make gobs of money over the rest of societies backs, whilst barely lifting a finger if ANY themselves.
TheSkunkCat 2 months ago
"People should be able to make up there own mind, (so long as they have the same mind as me)"
17thSHIT 2 months ago
the ironic smile of the black guy when richard calls him an african ape! lol
kungfumaster99 3 months ago
Hahaha I love Dawkins but this was hilarious when he called the black guy an ape. :P
EWWYOURFAC3 4 months ago
He's a minister, believes in creationism, AND lack any type of scientific knowledge. Coincidence? You decide.
joslinnick 4 months ago
Also, why are the skin variations among Native Americans, who inhabited Alaska to Cape Horn, so much fewer than the much greater skin type variety in Africa, Europe and Asia, where the same dfferences in climate exist? One group (Americans) arrived much more recently (< 20,000 years) in the Americas than those in Africa, Europe and Asia (1 million to 250,000 years ago), and display less skin type variation. This suggests that they needed longer to evolve distinct skin pigments than that time.
avidalocan 4 months ago
Notice that the hotter the climate, the more pigment in the skin. Equatorial Africans, probably the hottest place on earth, are pitch black (as are Australian Aboriginals). North Africans/Middle Eastern/Southern Europeans have tanned skin. Native Americans had tanned skin. Southern Asians have yellowish pigment. But Northern Europeans/Asians and Inuits/Eskimos are pure white with no skin pigment to protect against the sun, because it barely affects them there. The position on the globe did this.
avidalocan 4 months ago
Why dod God create black people and white people? I've lived for months in Nigeria and months in Germany. Believe me, being black in Nigeria is an advantage, because of the intensity of the sun on the equator. Being white in Germany is an advantage, against frostbite. And whites have narrower noses because it warms the air more than a broad nose before it reaches the lungs. Nobody can tell me that God knew this and created it this way - natural selection did, over hundreds of millenia.
avidalocan 4 months ago
@avidalocan Very good point :)
TeeGeeFan 3 months ago
when you argue with a religious person they just smile and repeat themselves, that creepy smile isnt going to make me switch to the insane side
KingADuhYeti 5 months ago
All the players in nature are working for their own survival but at the same time do not realize it. That is what makes evolution what it is. Every living thing involved in a war against all others and not even knowing it. Some life forms are flawed to a max and have to change, or happen to change through natural selection. While others were golden for thousands of years. I almost wounder if our tech will stop us from advancing genetically in the future?
defiythelie 6 months ago
it is my opinion, that supernatural belief is why we still, in this day, as a majority, live in squalor, pestilence, fear, hunger, and pain. it is self imposed guilt taken from scripture that has caused us to stay here on hell/earth, instead of believing that we can rise up. think im wrong? look around your planet. just tribes upon tribes of people that never broke free from superstition, and oppressive governments recongnise and use this exploitative method still today. Pharoahs exist, still
pearana 6 months ago
@Morgethein To define a forest with the shortcomings of emotional human thought and ego is an error. There is no argument. The forest develops and exists in accordance to its integral balance. Ecosystems are not about competition. Each part interacts with the other to create balance.
NewHangUps 6 months ago
@NewHangUps They are actually. However, you must realize competition and equilibrium are not two concepts that exclude one another, they are not distinct. Nash equilibrium is a theory worth investigating. Though not capturing the complete picture, there is the deception of species working together (e.g. clownfish + sea anemone) to gain a benefit in fitness.
avdmeers 6 months ago
@avdmeers To suggest there is "competition" in a forest is a misunderstanding. A plant adapts to its conditions, it does not fight. Just as a river does not compete against the bank....Water naturally flows to find the lowest point, there is not competition with high or low.The forest is constantly changing all parts work together as they find themselves, in each new manifestation. Constant change is the only constant.
NewHangUps 6 months ago
@NewHangUps You have a misunderstanding of what competition implies. It's all about natural selection and which species can adapt the best (and fastest). Those that adapt best are the best competitors, they don't hold pokemon deathmatches. Natural selection does not apply to a river... The forest working together? Change occurs by natural causes (wheather, mutation, ...) and competition occurs, those able to best adapt gain the higher ground. Those not, struggle and become extinct.
avdmeers 6 months ago
I have found something that I disagree with in this particular video. Not necessarily with the ideas but with the delivery. Around 3:40 Dawkins is explaining to the Bishop that evolution has no goals (which is true) and that it just changes, which is vaguely reminiscent of the creationists description of the beginning of the world, "God just made it." I think Dawkins was merely stating it this way for the sake of simplicity but, at the same time, that is a very misleading statement.
Spydermike268 7 months ago
@Spydermike268 Good point!
MeepullStewray 6 months ago
its funny that he is saying the black guy should be called an ape
millsathn 7 months ago
it answers every question, religion leaves so many pieces of the puzzle out and you're left more confused than you were when you didn't know anything. there is no goal, animals and humans aren't trying to reach anything, we're trying to evolve and survive. that's it. it's when you strip away everything that makes us a part of the animal kingdom, build buildings, systemise everything including food gathering and education, that's when you get people who lose sight of the animals we really are
shcnoozlebop 7 months ago
i know faith won't move mountains
but i've seen what it can do to skyscrapers
Mikeybetts 7 months ago 54
@Mikeybetts clever.
rune2h13579 7 months ago
@rune2h13579 LOL
shcnoozlebop 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mikeybetts clever. and true
rune2h13579 7 months ago
@Mikeybetts Ingenius :D
MagMag96 2 months ago
isnt it funny how these people deny evolution theory but look exactly like monkeys?
R2rGangstaFC 8 months ago
@R2rGangstaFC LMAO! Thats EXACTLY what I thought!
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
You know.. creationism doesnt believe in evolution... fine. But creationism has evolved into "intelligent design" thus disproving itself... craziness huh?
WOOHOJEHA 9 months ago
oh you are special alright
N7i3N 9 months ago
This man looks in the mirror and thinks he is made in the image of a perfect deity.... oh dear lord....
faithisfiction 9 months ago
@faithisfiction i was just thinking that..perfect example of the primitive man who still doesn't understand evolution and thinks he is above every other living thing.......
shcnoozlebop 7 months ago
retard: sarcasm.
elipto 10 months ago
At least the Kenyan Bishop asked questions and seemed genuinely interested in the answers Pr. Dawkins gave him. Good on in.
jeanfou1 10 months ago
Bahaha.
"It's a misunderstanding of evolution to say it has goals."
"Yah. Yahyahyahyah"
Questions answered.
Finalultima12 11 months ago
I like how Richard Dawkins explains it using the triangle with his hands. Whenever I talk to creationists, 90% of them will make that argument and I wanna explain to them very simply so they understand and I use the exact same hand gestures to help them understand something that should be trivial but, unfortunately, is not.
TheWhiteDreamsOfLife 11 months ago
at 3:45
Dawkins made a mistake when the Pastor asked about the goal of Evolution
maybe a classic mistake.
The Goal of Evolution is VERY SIMPLE it happens daily in our lives
it is off course SURVIVAL!!
izaccy 1 year ago
@izaccy He's right, evolution has no goal. It's reactionary & incidental.
KenMacMillan 11 months ago
@izaccy that's our goal, but evolution so far as the universe doesn't care wether we survive or even copulate, just like gravity, evolution has no goal.
Laparanoicafierita 11 months ago
@izaccy EVOLUTION's goal is NOT survival. are you stupid? You're more confused than stupid, i'd say.
JohnF30Music 11 months ago
Comment removed
thricepudding 1 year ago
this is wat happens wen white people showed Africans the bible
94NDR3S 1 year ago
Lol.Gangsta shake from the Bishop at 0:55.
da0217 1 year ago
LOL "Whats the goal? To have a big head?"
MrChris7586 1 year ago
could you immagine, a world like "the lion king" story?
freaks of nature like humans can, because we shouldnt exist at all...humanity is a story of a completely crippled society
the only answer is cataclysmic events, found crippled individuals favorable for the time, fewer preditors.. bipedal apes, can make tools to hunt, because they have to, and fewer preditors makes survivability,thus create community because it is hard, send your ass into a jungle bare naked today and you will be food
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
Hehe, well I gotta say, atheist though I am, the black preacher guy was at least patient and decent towards Dawkins.
JJMDude 1 year ago
0:56 omg the handshake! its like the secret password or something haha sorry it just made me laugh pretty hard, because it was a black guy that did it - and richard looked like he was just "wtf?"
Pearlcussion 1 year ago
3 people think that they were created in Gaaawwwd's Image
soreiks 1 year ago
Gosh i hope continue to evolve to perfect all our flaws, that include our "common sense"
mark17kazuo 1 year ago
it makes sense that Dawkins attacks religion. Religion and Evolution can both be seen as theories; take Evolution, there are thousands upon thousands of sources that support the theory of evolution. But, what about religion? Evolution has my vote.
TheWhiskeyClone 1 year ago
Survival of the fittest when applied to evolved apes = Business / Capitalism / Private ownership. Now I got the clear idea why Marx wants social equality. Thumbs up!!
blssdfall27 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INCORRECT. Nothing is in competition in a forest. There is no HIERARCHY. Everything seeks balance not domination. Dog eat dog is an emotional fiction.
Darwin was a racist eugenicist. He believed that he and his class where the most intelligent on the planet.
We have been manipulated to believe in "evolution and survival of the fittest" to legitamise the sickness of the corporations.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins
Wahahahaha, you're really funny! L.o.l.
dawkinschannel 1 year ago 23
@dawkinschannel Its not funny at all. Dawkins suggests we should not believe in God, astrology, phycic ability, homeopathy, etc, because they are not scientifically validated These things do have a worth and benefit to millions of people
But what does he say about the economic system which is based on imaginary trading, speculation and not even real money
He doesn't say anything. But that system creates war, and famine It destroys peoples lives, houses are repossessed because of imagined events
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@dawkinschannel If Dawkins was truly interested in "saving and enlightening the common person" he would expose the corrupt economic system, not wast his time being angry about a God he can not comprehended, and spiritual matters that he is blind too. He would not tar every aspect of religion with the same brush. He would recognise the quality and worth of that which benefits people.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@dawkinschannel
ignore ignorants like that, they give our highly-evolved species a bad name.
well, at least our brains are highly-evolved.
but imagine.. if canines evolved their brains instead of primates...
perplexing
Mikeybetts 7 months ago
@Kingfillins go and live in the jungle like our ancestors did, without technology or shelter, and then tell me if it is not a dog eat dog world out there...we are always in competition..as humans the things we compete for are different because we are more advance (ex. Jobs, the market, school etc) and those fields even science are dog eat dog...
cuevasdecamuy 1 year ago
@Kingfillins go back to 6th grade
crazygood876 1 year ago
@Kingfillins You don't even know elementary biology, it makes me sad.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro It makes you sad, we chimps get sad too. So I guess that is evidence of elemental evolution. No wait horses get sad too, and dogs, that means we must have evolved from every species that gets sad.
But that is not a joke. Consciousness and emotions are universal.
How is it that non related spices can experience sadness and joy? What does evolution say about the emotions of species?
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins It explains the diversity of species? Spirituality has nothing to do with it?
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro Good questions.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
@Kingfillins The theory is based on natural selection, a dog eat dog scenario would only last a generation before dying off.
WalnutCreekBagger 1 year ago
@Kingfillins wow......just.......wow. -.-
mannieTFormers 10 months ago
@Kingfillins That's the most ignorant series of statements I have read recently.
uscjd2004 8 months ago
@Kingfillins LOLOLOL, how many times were you dropped down the stairs? 7?
SorryStamin 4 months ago
the fact that they have to hide the bones shows that they know that we evolved yet dont want to admit it because ego and some because they would maybe lose money from their sheep
blazereef 1 year ago
It astounds me that people still ask "Why are there still apes if we evolved from them?" This only proves that no fundamentalist has ever read a single sentence about evolution. It is willful ignorance at it's worst.
suthezcian 1 year ago
i pity him... for generation, those who dont accept religion is killed ... he just feel save if he have religion... if you a islamic country.. you wont worry that a islamic militant going to kill u.. you might be worry that a christian militant or terrorist.
charitycloud 1 year ago
I live other there, no other there.
bfoaliali 1 year ago
I was surprised at how fast the preacher was converted to an evolutionist. lol
TheReasonParty 1 year ago
evolution does have a goal.. the goal is survival
AtheistAddiction 1 year ago 4
@AtheistAddiction Yeah. More specifically, the survival of one's genes. In other words, successfully propagating your genes... Cheers. (:
theuniverse 1 year ago
the goal of evolution is to have bigger penis, oh wait!
kelloggcerealxoxo 1 year ago
The main key to making the world a better place: EDUCATION.
ScottKeith7025 1 year ago 2
So according to Dawkins Evolution Is an instant that happens but the focus is on the current life as opposed to the entire system developed around it.
Much as similar to The Four seasons on Earth, One says What is the point of winter transition to spring? There is no point, we as many animals have adapted to revolve around the system that exists.
gmgunner 1 year ago
The handshake from :58 to 1:00 made me chuckle.
pikmen12321 1 year ago
Dawkins should be more clear with the bishop. I would answer: until now we were heading indeed toward bigger heads (among other transformations) but maybe from now on, being gradually substituted by computers, we will evolve in a different direction, toward smaller brains that have different qualities than the present and ancient brains.
felixpetrar 1 year ago
Bishop guy seemed nice at first but it's so very hard to get past his ignorance.
mercy35687 1 year ago
I'm not racist, but don't black people look more like apes than white people, not only in skin color, but in facial structure as well?
FaaarLeft 1 year ago 12
@FaaarLeft More Blacks vs Whites yes. A lot of Asians look more like Chimps and Bonobos too...Black Africans are the original human of the African Ape family so yes... :)
MsExoticBliss 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft there is a reason for that, we all originated from africa and we migrated away from there and lost the melanin in our skin.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05 This doesn't explain facial structure though. I wonder if appearance was seen by cultures in africa as a less disirable sexual trait than physiological vivacity.
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft Yeah it was probably only a secondary thing which wasnt as important at the time. A nice strong esthetically pleasing build would probably be most important as it would be a display of healthy strong genes
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft Aren't alot of chimps light skinned?
AtTheSpeedOfCheese 4 months ago
@FaaarLeft That has to do with the human migration out of africa and genetic changes due to climate and other physical factors.
wiibot15 4 months ago
@FaaarLeft Not quite. First of all "black" or "white" are not races. Even amongst African "black" people there are tribes like the Khoisan -- who have mixed features of asian, european and african facial structures. Asian people have a certain facial structure that may seem apelike to some people, but some European races have that too. We're all human, and we're all the same.
adi87tya 3 months ago 7
@adi87tya I think you can call it races, at least varieties. We have some special adaptations to where we live. Black skin in countries with lot's of sun and white in those with less for example. But we are very similar so calling us races may be wrong, for now at least.
jbkgjbkg 1 month ago
@adi87tya I'm not human, and your comment offends me. I'm a Reptilian Buttlord. now we must fight to the death sir.
ToadsMGodes 5 days ago
@FaaarLeft What your seeing there is a sort of beginning of change of species. Dawkins talks about this is "The Greatest Show on Earth"
Feroal2 3 months ago
@FaaarLeft Some look very similar to apes. Very few tho.
Sinatra857 3 months ago
@FaaarLeft I would twist that around and say that while it is probably true morphologically, if there is a psycho-physical parallelism, there can be no doubt that apes are less harmful to other apes than man has been to man. Therefore the same would hold true for black Africans, and conversely, the white man, more removed from his primal state, is thus more cruel, ruthless, unempathetic, and alien to the rest of mankind.
avidalocan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FaaarLeft You are racist.
einootspork 3 months ago
u evolve to survive thats the so called goal of evoloution to survive in all enviroments
sahooq 1 year ago
Darwin is such an idiot (and left-wing twit) when it comes to things like business.
PencilsAreAwesome 1 year ago
@PencilsAreAwesome Dawkis, I mean Dawkins.
PencilsAreAwesome 1 year ago
@PencilsAreAwesome You're a delusional fucktard living with their head in the sand. Go kick rocks, kid.
IAmTheCthulhu 1 year ago
@IAmTheCthulhu
You're stupid.
PencilsAreAwesome 1 year ago
3:40
I believe that Richard Dawkings mistaken when he says that evolution is not a goal! I believe that the theory itself is based on the evidence that nature always has a goal.
The goal of evolution is to make living being better to survive in the environment which the creature lives in.
But ok evolution has no final goal, unless you see reproduction as a goal.
look2ugly 1 year ago
@look2ugly Err no... Reproduction and enhanced survivability are outcomes or products of evolution, not goals.
Elak666b 1 year ago
i wouldve just asked this man...
ok bro.. tell me this...
why the fuck do we look different?
elipto 1 year ago
Well, er... God created them...
Equal? Er...
?!
dawkinschannel 1 year ago 22
@dawkinschannel LMAO!! :D
mannieTFormers 11 months ago
@elipto were not different that's an illusion atomically chemically and biologically everything on this planet/universe is related/similar
92451721921892113 1 year ago
@elipto we look different due to genetic mutations which are essential to the survival of the species, these mutations such as skin colour,hair texture,and eye colour are determined by enviromental factors and the genes are passed down to future descendants.
doctorw2 1 year ago
@elipto you know it would be ignorant to think that there is only one type of ape...as to there being only one type of race in human....well that becomes obvious because we see all that divercity....so "man is made in god's immage" hmmm...lets take a look at what immage people give god in all races...hmmm....oh i know, god looks like the race of the person that came up with the bullshit....ahhhh...that alone should challenge indoctrinated assholes...but nah, it doesnt work that way...does it
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@elipto Why the fuck does chimps and the oragotang look different? Because they are different smartazz... We just got a common ancestor. Thats the link between us and them.
Norwayflex89 10 months ago
If there is no God, then nothing is really evil evil. Everything is natural (murder, theft, war). Evil is a temporary illusion.
It's just the genes talking, and everything can be reduced to Chemistry, Math and Physics.
"Evil" is just a fairy tale we tell our children so they will grow up and become chartered accountants and give us lots of grandchildren.
And if your kid dies of cancer, it just means more food for me!
ianmac2010 1 year ago
I agree with you on certain points about nothing being good and evil. However there are acts that are either beneficial or detrimental for a single person or a group of persons. As social creatures we label things as good or evil based on morales we have developed over our existence. An act that benefits the group, tends to be favored as opposed to one that endangers them. Sadly this is a very basic explanation to how morales evolved but with limited text it's the best I can do.
Rokuns 1 year ago
@ianmac2010
Evil is a human constructed concept that describes an act of cruelty onto others that inflicts suffering, pain, misery and death. If you believe in God, then you must believe that God invented evil so God is capable of evil so shut the fuck up.
lamjer68 1 year ago 2
@lamjer68
" If you believe in God, then you must believe that God invented evi"
You have to borrow God's morality in order to judge Him with it. If there is no God, there is no evil, and your words are meaningless.
Shut YOUR mouth.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
"You have to borrow God's morality in order to judge Him with it. If there is no God, there is no evil, and your words are meaningless."
Morality doesn't come from god, its something you come to understand as you grow up. Its like saying we can't be "moral" without religion and we all know that's a bullshit statement. As I said, Evil is a construct to describe actions onto someone else. God has no moral sense and that's proven when you read the Bible. Kill yourself.
lamjer68 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lamjer68
"God has no moral sense and that's proven when you read the Bible. Kill yourself"
You're nuts.
ianmac2010 1 year ago
OMIGOD! A bunch of primates singing.
Nades129 1 year ago 4
Dawkins called the black guy an ape.
I was laughing so hard, I couldn't breathe.
BrucedatNigga 1 year ago
Ironically he is an ape, and we are all apes =)
betocore 1 year ago
It's amazing, yet predictable, how the human mind will take evolution, without hindsight or foresight, with a grain of salt. People, wake up...our economic system is made up...we made it up...producing results of "artificial selection" if you will.
Humans are group animals.....we don't weed each other out, we've just been grouped as such, and by a flawed system, at that. Evolution is a slow process....
More study and research.....
blaziermissy 1 year ago
I would love to take a minute and just thank God for making evolution possible. Thanks God.
BrucedatNigga 1 year ago
you're welcome.
now it's your time to evolve.
marvincontendo 1 year ago
@marvincontendo
Judging by your pic, I don't think you should be telling anyone to evolve.
lol
BrucedatNigga 1 year ago
really why dont you thanks god for the genocide of billions of people throughtout human history, thank god for the catastrophes than people have been subjected to throught war , you are a stupid fucking idiot, there IS NO GOD GET OVER IT , your just saying god was responsible for evolution so you dont sound like a fucking retard becuase evolution has been proven already , faggot asshole
hellsspike 1 year ago
What was that in the begining? "You know I was born right over the road over there." "No- im told over the other side"
Idiot detector broke..
WERTY1112 2 years ago
...And creationists call athiests arrogant... lmfao.
CaffeinatedBum 2 years ago 24
@CaffeinatedBum I've never understood that. Some creationist's argument is athiests are arrogant. Well, whether they are or not doesn't mean they're wrong.
S24995 2 years ago
@CaffeinatedBum
They're infected by a brain parasite.. there's no cure
w4yn6 8 months ago
Ya know, you can say "evolution doesn't have a goal, and this is true, but predictions could be made as to where it may lead next. Only problem is that Natural selection is being tempered somewhat by our modern society in that the weak are helped to survive. This is moral, but slows evolution. I would need much more than the space allowed to lay out where evolution may lead us and why. Suffice to say, whatever traits make individuals or groups succeed will thrive.
QuestionMarc 2 years ago
yuppp ....
tibboy05 2 years ago
Thats so funny my verification code was "watermelon":) This was just after I replied with "So is a water mellon and a raincloud, So?"
Here is the problem I have with the "common ancester theory" If on one 1 branch it loses strength and on the orther branch it loses smarts then how did it gain?
Heres another one How many differant types of monkies do we have? How differant types of man do we have?
jesuskopp 2 years ago
Evolution by natural selection doesn't necessarily mean animals will get bigger and stronger and smarter. You may think so but no.
It's just survival, change that benefits survival in any way will be retained because it will be passed on. If that means because it got smaller to slip away from predators, or more muscles to allow better tree climbing whatever.
I hope that answers your question.
Cheers!
P.S. Your thinking of man as his own animal or group but actually we are classified as monkeys.
Xirbtt 2 years ago
Do you think that I have a problem with a animal changeing to fit its eviroment?
How can man be looked at as the same as an animal?
Do you realize the technology that we are presently exchanging ideas and thoughts on came by man?
What animal even comes close to this type of innovation?
jesuskopp 2 years ago
I do not argue that we are beyond in scale what any animal has done before us.
But that doesn't change our features and traits that closely link us with the primates. We are animals, it is not meant to be a demeaning thing accepting this nor does it belittle our progress as a socially advanced cultural organism. I was just point out that we don't have different types of monkeys and different types of "man" we have different types of monkeys of which humans happen to be a branch.
Cheers!
Xirbtt 2 years ago
You should open your eyes to the real world instead of asking absurd questions. Seriously...
cuddles31 2 years ago
Not so sure you are referring to me?
Asking questions is how we learn, would you agree?
We also learn best by what we can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch for our ownselfs, correct?
jesuskopp 2 years ago
Who gave us/you this classification?
The same type of people who said we were under major Global warming, correct?
jesuskopp 2 years ago
by classification i am assuming you mean why we are classified as apes? that`s very simple. Its been known for a VERY long time. the reason why we are classified as such is for the same reason everything else is classified as they are, Because of morphological anatomical traits. As soon as you attempt to fully describe the physical traits of a human, you automatically end up describing the physical traits of a primate. More specifically a type of ape.
AcanLord 2 years ago
i believe i can answer your question for you. :) You see, Natural selection does not place value on what is good or bad by our standards. the only thing it does is permit favorable traits in all things being passed on. what is favorable however, changes from situation to situation depending on different things. Sometimes that means being smarter, and not necessarily stronger, sometimes the reverse. the great white sharks ancestor was huge, but natural selection shrunk it.
AcanLord 2 years ago
I believe there is something to this "animals getting smaller thing", and this still does not mean that one type of animal can tranform into a differant type of animal, do see what I mean?
jesuskopp 2 years ago
Yes jesuskopp. But your missing something. Evolution actually does NOT permit organisms to transform into a different type. The model creationists use when they are talking about evolution is quite often a false one, and is rather silly. The real evolutionary model is rather different then what you probably think it is.
AcanLord 2 years ago
If you like, i can explain how evolution actually works. Its really not so hard to understand when you have the right people try to explain it to you. The notion of "kind into another kind" is bogus and comes from a failure to recognize how evolutionary lines of decent actually operate. This, purported "transformation" into something fundamentally different never occurs.
AcanLord 2 years ago
You seem to be describing micro evolution, and if this is the case I already believe in this.
I really like this comment-"This, purported "transformation" into something fundamentally different never occurs."
You are welcome to explain anything you want to me, you may consider doing it as a personal message?
jesuskopp 2 years ago
To further elaborate on the statement of the shark. Megalodon was truly massive. Maybe by our standards this is "better" but this is not necessarily so in certain situations. For example.. When Large numbers of big prey becomes scarce, a bigger body may tend to become a disadvantage because you would require more food. Natural selection in the presence of this problem would favor Offspring which are smaller. Smaller mating offspring eventually results in a smaller species.
AcanLord 2 years ago
Gene pools vary people, get over it.
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
"I'm an ape, are you Bishop?"
"No, I'm special"
and there you have it ladies and gents. The religious position. "I'm better than you"
Arrogant K-nuts
HitMeQuick 2 years ago
believers in evolution will evolve further and sky daddy believers will retard back into fish. simmpellls.
userwl2850 2 years ago
"What is the goal of evolution?"
"Is it for us to have big heads"? :D lol..HAHA
Now that was funny.. I guess that's the goal of evolution..
AhoSenpai 2 years ago
The goal of evolution is improve life`s chances of survival through slow and steady, yet uncharted, changes.
2plus2is9 2 years ago
blacks are also cousins of us whites.. they aren't the same though, and i think science is hiding it not to cause any fuss.
bachjupp 2 years ago
Where's your scientific proof that they're not the same? And in what way do you mean "not the same"? They're the same species, the only difference is skin colour which is as minor a change as hair colour or eye colour.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Black, White or any other races of humans are different at some level, but same can be said for one white person to the next. But we are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent similar. If that's enough to call the different races each others cousins then so be it.
2plus2is9 2 years ago
Personally I find that it's more worthwhile to focus on similarities rather than differences, and not just because what we have in common is overwhelmingly greater.
Often, we look at "the others" (no matter what our differences...race, religion, sex, nationality, taste in music or beer) as somehow less friendly and treat them differently as compared to "our own".
2plus2is9 2 years ago
That's not true. There is more genetic variation within races than between races, meaning that any two people of the same race are likely to be more genetically different than any two people of different races. Don't use scientific ideas you don't understand to promote racism and racial superiority. It's been done before.
oliverdavidanderson 2 years ago
You are 100% right! It is so surprising how many people really believe race is classifiable through biology and genetics. As for as science goes, all humans are 99.9% the same. We are a very homogeneous species. I wish this was taught more because some people really believe that race is biological, when indeed it is social.
ericaj58 2 years ago
You are an idiot. Blacks and whites along with any other human "race" are 99.9% identical. You trying to make differences base on physical appearances. But there is no biological or genetic bases for race. Humans including blacks are all completely homogeneous. Also many of scientist have try to prove race through science, but could not. Race is a social concept. The physical difference you see between "races" are insignificant compare to the genetic material all humans share. Don't be ignorant.
ericaj58 2 years ago
oliverdavidanderson and ericaj58: First let me say that I wholeheartedly support your stand against the crude use of pseudoscientific conceptions of race as a means of justifying racial discrimination. However, I'm afraid you're not getting the science exactly right. If you'll step back from the hypersensitive political ramifications of the debate for a moment, I think you'll agree it's actually obvious that there must be a genetic basis for race, once the term "race" is responsibly construed.
josephjstern 2 years ago
In the 60,000 years since modern Homo sapiens left its ancestral homelands in East Africa, populations of humans settled in regions with a high degree of mutual isolation. Although there was probably some gene flow throughout the prehistoric human world, its rate was probably very low, giving virtual genetic isolation. As occurs in all species, geographically isolated subpopulations will tend to diverge in accordance with the selective pressures of their own particular environments.
josephjstern 2 years ago
These differential selection pressures operated long enough to produce some striking divergences in the soft, fleshy, outward-facing parts of the body (which are more easily adaptable than our internal organs because far fewer bodily systems depend on them). Even our skeletons have been slightly affected (East Asian populations tend on average to have thinner skulls than Northern European populations, for instance). In this context, "race" does have a precise biological meaning:
josephjstern 2 years ago
It is simply the geographical classification of the ancestral subpopulation from which the majority of one's ancestors come if we trace her lineage back to pre-technological times (when travel and immigration were exceedingly rare events). In this precise sense, everyone is happy to recognize that race has a genetic basis when medical issues depend on it. Sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease are two well-known examples. Outside of medicine, this obvious fact is now a taboo of the educated.
josephjstern 2 years ago
Certain genetic mutations in populations are a result or consequence of natural selection. Carriers of the Sickle Cell trait have better protection against malaria. In these individuals, malaria will not be as invasive. Carriers of Tay-Sachs gives better protection against tubercolis. It is important to note many genetic mutations are not harmful or helpful. In cases of Sickle Cell and Tay-Sachs it becomes harmful when the child is able to receive these gene mutation from both parents.
ericaj58 2 years ago
The important thing about races from the biological point of view is that they are unimportant. Since all contemporary humans can potentially interbreed, geographic divergence has not had enough time to speciate us, and now that those geographic barriers have been largely removed by technology, the trend will likely be toward greater uniformity in the future. I welcome that. As for the observation that genetic variation is greater within populations than between them, that's true but irrelevant:
josephjstern 2 years ago
I totally agree! It would be best for humankind to move towards greater uniformity. Unfortunately people still hold on to the belief of races.
ericaj58 2 years ago
1. the coarser organ sees much apparent equality.
2. how could you be so boring as to welcome uniformity in people?
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago