Seven Wonders of the World: RICHARD DAWKINS (Part 1 of 1)

[Pipsqwak]

I would so like to exchange digital codes with Richard Dawkins and construct a unique phenotype to carry on our genotype.....

[mykliam]

“An embryo (is) genes constructing, for themselves, a machine to live in."

- Richard Dawkins

[EclecticSceptic]

Thanks for the upload.

[miguenada]

Shouldn't the bats deafen each other?

[vicachcoup]

Let me get this right - the bat deafens itself by a special muscle contraction whilst sending out a very loud noise. It also the apparatus to then hear the very faint echo coming back.

Kindly explain one possible gradual change route that led to this, and the positive selection advantage of each stage.

[vicachcoup]

@vicachcoup i.e please explain how these separate features happened to come about simultaneously - or how each was useful without the others being present.

[vicachcoup]

@vicachcoup

PS - the bat gives off sounds at 50/sec - and this can be controlled in a 'tight economy' - lets throw that into the equation too

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup The features didn't 'come about simultaneously'; they were added and some subtracted, and they didn't need to serve the same function throughout their history. Feathers were already present on dinosaurs that couldn't fly, but were later co-opted for use in flight. A trait can also serve two or more functions simultaneously: again with feathers, they can be used for heat insulation, flight, and sexual display.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

As I suspected - the answer would be vague - not your fault of course - but it proves there is nowhere near any form of answer. Making a reference to dinosaur feathers adds very little to understand any form of evolution.

And this is just one example - bombadier beetles - bola spiders - lots of other fascinating features glibly explained away by evolutionists.

The unknows far outweight the knowns IMO

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'but it proves there is nowhere near any form of answer'

Don't be a moron, mate.

'Making a reference to dinosaur feathers adds very little to understand any form of evolution'

Ummm...what? I referenced that because it's a perfect example of how traits can change their functions.

'And this is just one example - bombadier beetles'

Bombardier beetles? That's old hat. Already been explained.

Get some new material. Thanks.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup Also, the evolution of the vertebrate eye has already been explained. Yet another example of how 'irreducibly complex' organs have been reduced. You should look into this stuff, you know. Because it's out there. Instead of expecting to be spoon fed, you should actually do some research instead of asking whiney little questions on YouTube. I can point you to some references if you'd like, though, which I'm more than happy to do.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

Whine? Moron?

No comment

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'but it proves there is nowhere near any form of answer'

Right, except 'God did it', which you confuse for an 'answer' even though it leaves the much, much more complex intelligent being unexplained. I get the sneaking impression that God is just a stand-in for creationists' lazy attitude towards investigation.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup Oh, and I almost forgot the bacterial flagellum. Yep, that too has been 'reduced' and explained, in spite of creationist appeals that such a thing 'can't possibly' have evolved gradually. But somehow I'm supposed to believe that because I personally can't come up with a scenario for bat echolocation (to be honest, I know bugger-all about bats. But that just puts me in the same category as you), evolution is 'therefore' false. Sorry mate, science doesn't work that way.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

Baceria flagellum - got a link ? Thanks

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Baceria flagellum - got a link ? '

One scenario that's been proposed in the scientific lit: (dot) talkorigins (dot) org (fslash) indexcc (fslash) CB (fslash) CB200_1 (dot) html

lots of refs on that page

This all came out very publicly in the Dover case a few years ago, where the IDist case was blown to dust. Like I said, old hat. Behe even claimed that the immune system was irreducibly complex. He was unaware that whole books had been written about its evolution.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup And finally, did you know that some quarter of all known species are parasites? If ID is correct, then this designer sure put in a lot of hours lovingly designing things that castrate, entomb, mummify, poison, take over the brains of, or otherwise horribly mess with other things. Did you know that 5 percent of the human genome is actually virus DNA? (look into endogenous retroviruses)? But I forgot: the designer also lovingly fashioned viruses to invade our cells.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

The evolution of the eye. Explained?

What I have come across is a list of organism with supposedly more specialised [read different] eyes and then the statement that . I have not come across a clear description of how the process works. There is an element of faith that showing a supposed progression somehow proves evolution did bring about that line of increasing complexity. For me the explanation is not convincing enough

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

Parasites etc.

This is the same question as - If there is a God, why does he allow evil. This is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical one.

It is also a shallow question which revelas a shallow understanding of what theists believe about God and the universe.

I agree lots of theists talk a load of codswallop which gives the atheist plenty of ammunition, but it is a sign of lazy thinking that the atheists chooses these straw men to concentrate on.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'It is also a shallow question which revelas a shallow understanding of what theists believe about God and the universe'

Sorry, but you don't need to have a very 'deep' understanding of what theists believe about God and the universe to think that their God must be a cruel, vindictive demon if he designed Ebola. Theists don't so much try to explain things like this as they ignore them.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

Yikes - love the diatribes.

Confirms my point about atheists attacking strawman arguments.

TBH I really don't have the inclination or time to go into this. If I felt you had a genuine desire to discuss this intellectually, I may have responded; but your vitriolic tone obviously shows you have a very strong Belief in your opinions. We all need a faith and belief in something. so I'll let you happily trundle along with yours.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Confirms my point about atheists attacking strawman arguments.'

Which straw man argument? You haven't pointed any out.

'TBH I really don't have the inclination or time to go into this'

Yeah, thought not. The thinking got too onerous, didn't it? I addressed each of your points, but somehow that wasn't enough. Instead you you chose to feign offense at my 'diatribes'. Well, good luck with your Bronze Age mythology. I'll stick to the science.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2 'Which straw man argument? You haven't pointed any out.'

By that I mean the caricatured version of religion/ God you hold in your mind.

Bronze age mythology. Wow , you sound very ingellitent.

Bet you just loved 'The God Delusion' , right ?

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'By that I mean the caricatured version of religion/ God you hold in your mind.'

An intelligent designer who designs things is a caricature? I think not, sir. If it's not that, please define what your God is, rather than what it isn't.

'Bronze age mythology. Wow , you sound very ingellitent.'

The sarcasm is untoward, given that this is perfectly accurate. God-belief is both archaic and unscientific.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2 'God-belief is both archaic and unscientific.'

Can you explain how a belief in God is unscientific?

Which scientific principle will you use to disprove God or to test [cue the spaghetti monster cliches]

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Can you explain how a belief in God is unscientific?'

Yes. It supposes that an immaterial mind is a rational category. It isn't; it's like an immaterial kidney.

'Which scientific principle will you use to disprove God or to test'

The impossibility of disembodied minds.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

'An intelligent designer who designs things is a caricature?please define what your God'

God is the entity that exists beyond time space. That initiated the universe [even the multiverse if you believe in that' - the First Cause.

That set the universe in motion with a potential of laws that ensured sentient life arose.

Most scientists will speak with open eyes of wonder at the 'intelligence behind the laws of physics'. Downplay the phenomenon if you like.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'God is the entity that exists beyond time space. That initiated the universe [even the multiverse if you believe in that' - the First Cause.'

And of course this 'first cause' is not itself reckoned to need one itself. Somehow the universe is reckoned to require a 'cause' and yet this being 'that exists beyond space time' (whatever that means) gets off scott-free.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'That set the universe in motion with a potential of laws that ensured sentient life arose.'

You just said something monumentally backward there, because you've been supposing that evolution DOESN'T account for complexity. And yet here you are saying that sentient life 'arose'. Well, which was it? Did it arise, or was it designed? (ie. because the laws of nature were INSUFFICIENT for it to do so without divine intervention) You're double-dipping.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Most scientists will speak with open eyes of wonder at the 'intelligence behind the laws of physics'.'

And most people used to stand slack-jawed at the 'intelligence' behind organisms. Now we know better, because scientists aren't content to remain dumbfounded. The universe is far grander than any creation narrative will ever be. Theism seems to me not only blatantly arrogant and wrong (and dopey), it's also staggeringly boring.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

'staggeringly boring'

Its the way I get to feel after being in these types of discussions or the nth time.

I would previousy have tried to counter each point and give a detailed rebuttal of your triumphalist half-baked ideas.

I just can't be bothered these days.

So happy point scoring [You're doing well and firmly in the lead in this exchange].

Final question - how did the universe or multiverse etc begin?

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'I would previousy have tried to counter each point and give a detailed rebuttal of your triumphalist half-baked ideas.'

Half-baked? That's a bit...disingenuous. For example, when I pointed out the blatant contradiction you found yourself in (the universe is fine-tuned 'for' life, yet it needs the hand of a designer for that life to actually get arranged), that's not a trivial point.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Final question - how did the universe or multiverse etc begin?'

The universe - in the sense of all the processes and phenomena that exist - didn't have a beginning. The universe AS WE KNOW IT did, and that's known as the Big Bang. It started as part of what physicists call a phase transition in a quantum fluctuation. Interesting point: the universe has zero total energy, hence requiring no 'outside' agency to bring it about.

How did God begin?

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

'It started as part of what physicists call a phase transition in a quantum fluctuation'

Lol!

This potentiality or quantum fluctuation didn't exist right? What did it magic itself out of?

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

'How did God begin?'

The point is this - cause and effect exist as features of the physical universe/multiverse/omniverse -call it what you will.

The whole point is that to avoid infinte regress there has to be something out of that chain that initiated the universe.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'The whole point is that to avoid infinte regress there has to be something out of that chain that initiated the universe.'

Assuming that the universe was 'initiated'. Also, why on Earth should this entity that you speak of have a PERSONALITY of all things?

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup Also, there's a fairly detailed explanation of why disembodied minds are nonsensical categories (and hence why an immaterial primordial mind, or God, cannot possibly exist) at my blog: warofthewaves (dot) blogspot (dot) com, then type in 'disembodied minds' in the search bar for a series of articles that look into this. I sense that you're not beyond reach. In spite of my at-times bitchy tone, I am more than happy to discuss these things with you.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

'the scientific alternative: that mind is an "emergent" property of the brain that arrived late in the universe, and that, ultimately, "bubbled up" from simplicity through the ratchet of evolution.'

OK - now lets have the proof of that assertion. And proof that a pig for example has an ability for abstraction, reflection and calculation as we do.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'OK - now lets have the proof of that assertion'

The entirety of neuroscience, plus logic. You can't posit super-complex things like minds by recourse to even MORE complex things like super minds. Evolution is the only process that in principle can even begin to break down this complexity and distribute it over countless eons, with small but sensible increments. This is in stark contrast to having a monstrous wallop of it from the very outset.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

'God, when he wasn't so lame, oddly enough. Still, he was more of - - - - '

Thought there was hope for dialogue earlier on - but after that display of your Dawkinish vile hatred I hereby terminate this exchange . . . . Bye Oh devotee [or is it priest] of the religion of PseudosiceintificGodHaters.

PS - don't lose that wonderful FAITH you have in your Beliefs [laughs at the irony]

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Thought there was hope for dialogue earlier on'

Yeah, well, I didn't promise I was going to talk pretty on that blog. Thing is though, can you actually refute my ARGUMENTS? We both know that you don't like my tone, but can you say anything to rebut ideas I actually CONVEY?

And hey, why so upset? I thought that God I was badmouthing was an 'atheist caricature'? Apparently not.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Bye Oh devotee [or is it priest] of the religion of PseudosiceintificGodHaters.'

Nope, just science and rationality. Get it right.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Bet you just loved 'The God Delusion' , right ?'

I did, because it addressed the God that people actually believe in (you know, the one who listens to prayers, grants them, intervenes in human history now and again, and, if we're to be really enthusiastic, lovingly crafted animals and viruses - damn that sounds so dopey, but that's what many believe - ie. a personal God, not the 'God as oneness' or 'God as the universe' silliness). And it crushed that God utterly.

[vicachcoup]

@cayetanoluis2

It was his worst book. A serious case of straw men arguments.

Watch his videos on youtube - he will try to belittle every theist with poor debating skills yet refuses to debate William Lane Craig.

Many atheists were embarassed by the book - that fact you applaud it says something.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Many atheists were embarassed by the book - that fact you applaud it says something. '

They needn't have been. I think that they give too much heed to the typical theist excuse of 'Ah, but that's not MY God you're criticism'. Sorry mate, but it is. If someone says they're a Christian, then they believe in a personal being. Theists like to have it both ways: they make their God so vague that it's beyond refutation, and then when no one's looking, they pray to this being.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'Many atheists were embarassed by the book - that fact you applaud it says something. '

Many theists are embarrassed by the Bible. The fact that William Lane Craig applauds it says something. And he believes that Satan is an actual being! And here we're talking about one of the 'serious' theologians.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'but it is a sign of lazy thinking that the atheists chooses these straw men to concentrate on'

I'm not 'concentrating' on them. I was just adding them as a side-show, to further demonstrate how obtuse the theist's take on all of this really is. It raises not just logical problems, but also philosophical and ethical ones. Theists eventually tangle themselves in knots trying to explain their way out of these conundrums, all because of an emotional need to believe.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup And no, the parasite case isn't the 'same' as the question of why God allows evil. It would be a question of why God PARTICIPATES in evil. Unless you think that designing something that you know is going to make a child suffer anguish isn't evil. So let me get this straight: Saddam Hussein gasses the Kurds with chemical weapons, and we all acknowledge that this is evil. God designs Ebola and HIV (or at least SIV, which evolved into HIV ;) ) but this is 'philosophical'?

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup 'The unknows far outweight the knowns IMO'

Cool, so you agree wholeheartedly with evolutionists (the unknown is sort of the reason we have science). The difference is that they're the ones actually doing the research and coming up with explanations to account for complexity. You're just sniping from the sidelines, indulging in crude caricatures of how science works.

[cayetanoluis2]

@vicachcoup p.s. I don't know whether anyone has done research on the evolution of the precise details of bat echolocation, but a good place to start would be to consider if there are other types of echolocation that use similar mechanisms but that aren't as complex. These would likely provide plausible analogues for the stages of echolocation that led up to the very complex system presented here. A similar approach has led to the explanation of eye evolution.

[jessybubblz]

Oh the irony when the add next to my video is

"Christian Prayer Centre. Post a Prayer Request, Thousands Will Pray for YOU."

Could I ask them to pray that my copy of 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins finally arrives in the mail?

[antijames001]

@PointsNorth1 Someone who is good at speaking

[antijames001]

he is really a good orator....

[PointsNorth1]

@antijames001 what the hell is an orator?

[vizion24]

What is the name of the piano piece he was playing? Anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

[myadegarin]

Thanks Richard

[ReligousTruth]

The eighth wonder of the world is this footage. Excellent, thanks!

[AbortedSheepFetus]

thanks for the video :)

[seanoceallachain]

Wonder no.7 is by far the best :) :D

[seanoceallachain]

Yeah great job !!! Excellent stuff

[artdeco101010]

Excellent footage - thanks for posting !