Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
maybe our brains have evolved to inlfluence the world in a certain way i.e we don't perceive all the empty space... maybe like how we collapse the wave functions
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@Alexdurrant7 no, science refers to a method, and the body of work that results from its application. scientific truths are not absolute. they are always changing, always being improved.
Dawkins keep using this genetic code argument. How does that imply evolution? I read The Greatest Show on Earth (twice) but I still do not understand it. How does the fact that more distant animals share less genes imply that they are on a family tree? To me the strongest evidence is the bits of junk DNA that look like deteriorated genes from other creatures.
@sulljoh1 I really can´t see why you have a problem understanding this, I really don´t, it seems to me to be as plain as the nose on your face. Read it again, slower.
@yatter1 I've heard it over and over in Dawkins form. I'll try asking a biology professor. Obviously more similar animals share more genes, that is why they are more similar. That could be true if they were individually created (which, to be clear, I do not believe for a second)
@sulljoh1 What is your problem? Family members will obviously share more similarities, the further apart we are, the lñess are the similarities, I don´t see that this can be an issue of import! I genuinely don´t see what your problem is. Really I don´t.
@yatter1 There is no problem. Don't get upset here. I am genuinely trying to understand. Just think about what I am saying. Animals that are more similar would have more DNA in common if evolution was true. They would also have more DNA in common if they were individually created. Two blueprints for similar buildings have a lot of the same specifications. Since it is compatible with either theory, not that ID is a valid theory, it can't be used to prove one over the other, right?
@yatter1 Yes, but that is hardly the most convincing evidence for evolution. Now pseudogenes. Those are convincing. Why would we have useless genes that look like superannuated versions of genes in other animals if we were individually created?
Well there's no reason at all each animal species would have the same DNA code if they were created separately. You've just asserted that they would. If you just try and make the facts fit your beliefs, you might succeed. By your argument, there's absolutely no reason a bat would be closer related to a human than to a bird. Or a whale closer to a human than to a fish. (After all, they do LOOK similar- no logic from the creator at all)
@matthewjhaywood My argument is that I don't understand Dawkins argument
Although it has been a few months and I did a little more research and talked to some biologists. Now I think I understand it. Any gene that you decide to sequence gives you exactly the same family tree. Still I think Dawkins could do a better job of explaining it.
@GodTheHypothesis The fact that more similar animals have more genes in common with each just makes sense. It could easily be true if all life was designed, like the similar bits of computer code you find in similar applications. So, as I understand, the point is that WHICH EVER GENE you look at in comparing relatedness, it produces exactly the same tree of life. Is that the point? I understood the part about DNA bonding between species, but it was not totally clear how he applied that.
It's not just the fact that they're "more similar". It's the fact that genetic patterns match so many other facts- in fact, in many cases the most similar looking animals DONT share more genes. Some fish are closer related to mammals than they are to other fish. For example, from fossil evidence we know that fish are a LOT older than whales. However, if they'd been designed, fish would surely share a lot in common with whales. It's the fact that the genes fit in with the other facts.
@GodTheHypothesis If whales had to go from lobe finned fishes to mammals and back to the sea, then of course theyre going to be a lot older than some fish. When you say the genetic patterns match "so many other facts," what other facts do you mean? Would you mind explaining this a little?
Well the genetics are exactly what you'd expect given the geographical distribution of fossils as well as the dating of fossils (for a start). For example, genetic algorithms tell us that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived about 6 million years ago. So if you then found human fossils in india 7 million years old and chimpanzee in africa 7 million years old, you know something's gone wrong. In reality, they all match as they'd be expected to.
@GodTheHypothesis Makes sense. Except dating splits at 3 million years ago vs 30 million years by looking at the genetic code seems problematic. Some species have gone relatively unchanged for longer than that, except neutral mutations.
Yeah there are plenty of problems, it's never as simple as it sounds and the best you can usually hope for is an estimate. I think the main thing about evolution is that all the various pieces of evidence match each other- there are no intense anomalies. With the genetics also, it's important to point out that a very important fact is that we understand the mechanism by which natural selection occurs (i.e random mutations). This makes the idea of a fixed species unbelievable.
@GodTheHypothesis So what is your point. Unbelievable isn't the scientific method. 'God', why are there so many dumb-witted "atheists" who do nothing but set back the whole progress of the rest of the science community...
it's only normal that to humans, death seems unjust. I mean as living beings, our main instinct is survival, it's our drive, a greed that everyone shares. The inevitable blackness that waits for us at the ends therefor seems to contradict the very nature of our existence, at least so most of us will figure. That's why many people will cling to spiritual belief, they are simply unable to accept that death is simply the end of our natural purpose and not the gateway to afterlife.
Luckynum1107 reading your note made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end, beautifully written, almost poetic and inescapable true. In away its a sad curse that being an ape that can think in an on matters outside of our existance that we can think of, and fear our own mortality. Great post thanks
@GeorgesBarras Absolutely. But as Brian Malow pointed out, at one point in evolution, when we dropped asexual reproduction, we essentially traded immortality for sex. I'm still not sure which is better - maybe evolution got it wrong at least once :)
@geordietoddy i sure wish we were immortal, but without death there can be no change in an overall race, thus forth, we would be bacteria. better to be a dying human, than an immortal bacteria.
@awesomeskier12345 Well, you say that there could be no changes if we were immortal bacteria, but we don't know that. I mean sure, It didn't play out that way - that's not to say it COULDN'T. Who knows what nature's actually capable of.
Why? because if they can't survive on their own others will make them survive. Blind people get dogs, people who are born without working legs get a weelchair, etc. So everyone, even with bad genes, can survive and reproduce.
Not entirely. Asthma still kills people, people resistant to epidemic type infectious organisms like viruses and bacteria are more likely to survive and reproduce. Also I guess people who don't get as much energy out of fat in the united states are more likely to be skinny and not die from heart disease. Oh yea but that only counts if they die before they have kids.
Too bad? Are you serious? This kind of thinking is exactly what laymen always find shocking about evolution. What is a bad gene anyway? If you can survive and reproduce than obviously you have been "fit enough". Evolution is a natural law and not a rule we should base our society on.
And humans didn't stop evolving. This is impossible as evolution is a process which is inherent to life. Change over time. One example is that the average human is now taller than 100 years ago.
however, I think the idea behind the initial comment still has some relevance. Humans have distorted the natural process of things through a creative process of their own. Technology is more and more present in our lives and as it now stands it is taking over, undoing the natural process of how living organisms progress . Before long I suspect that we will literally become technology. (CONT...)
Microchip (still prototypes for now) implanted within the brain and controlled by uploaded software can regulate disorders in the nervous system, caused by diseases like parkinson's
@d4m4s74 We do still evolve. That's why the odd person is born without canine teeth (for chewing raw meats) and without their little toes (for clinging on to branches). (you only need 4 toes on each foot to assist balance, the little pinky is for climbing.
whew I was worried when he said we were 100 percent sure evolution is a fact. Im like oh please mention that the fact of evolution is different from the theory of evolution that explains the consequences of it. Creationists will pounce on that if you dont.
Why don't you go watch some exciting pokemon videos then kid? This man is trying to provide a solid explaination for the host because she asked for it. If you aren't willing to watch it, get outta here and watch something more suitable for your infantile mind.
Believe it or not, this isn't logical for most creationists, but again, nothing seems to meet their crazy logical standards anyways except perhaps contradictions....
evolution is a lie. I N THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH. The only TRUE GOD is the GOD of the BIBLE. HE is the only ALLMIGHTY GOD. YES THAT IS TRUE.
what use is it to spew this crap? there is a reason as time goes on, the number of people who believe in god decreases. evidence piles on as time passes, but your argument remains tired, unchanged, and completely evidence free.
It's the job of a true Christian to say how wrong everybody else is, do they ever think that the real god might be Thor with his mighty hammer? They probably think Thor was imaginary, but not theirs! btw hitting your Caps Lock or holding Shift doesn't make your delusions any more true, you crazy kook!
@BirdFantastic I think a lot of Christians miss the point about their duty to evangelise. The idea is to inform people about Jesus, then to respect their free will - whatever the outcome. So I don't really mind them saying "have you heard the wondrous story of Jesus?", because I can just answer "yes I have, please go away now", it's the ones that think it's their duty to CONVERT your belief to theirs - they're the ones I want to punch.
No it isn't. It's actually octopus'. It's one of those things that people who weren't as clever as they thought they were invented. Stephen Fry says so, and he reads books and stuff.
I HAVE SCIENTIFIC,LOGICAL,AND UNDISPUTABLE PROOF of the exsistance of god,this is recently discovered and the reason why more and more scientists are now believers in God.I dont believe in Faith,and thank god i have found a logical way of proving his exsistance and i can show anyone who is interested the proof so they too can have a logical understanding.I was an atheist most of my life and i spent my time studying science and after 18 years I finally figured out the truth. PEACE!!!!!
You're an idiot. If you had indisputable proof of the existence of god, it would be called science. As science does not teach the existence of god then you do not have indisputable proof.
You have a point about that...but he also mentions the "worthless" genes that we have and that dont do anything.
Altough they are no superior evidence for evolution they are (at least for me) a strong indicator that there was no intelligent designer...why would a concious and allknowing intelligence create unused data?
So I think his overall presentation here made a quite strong case that evolution is the best theory of creation there is so far.
Few species are PERFECTLY suited for their environments. They good, but not the best an intelligent designer with omni-everything could do.
Evolution has to make do with what it already has and make small, incremental changes which can only ever be in the direction of immediate improvement. There's no going through several stages that are less-suited because from there you can get to something a lot better.
What we see is the result of evolution: survival not perfect fit.
..an overwhelming mountain of evidence. so its as "true" as anything in the scientific world. i assume by hearing ur denial of evolution that u are religious. u need to get over the fact that 95% of the worlds biologists agree that evolution happened and is still happning.
definition of fact:"actuality, certainty; truth, verity, gospel. antonym lie, fiction". it is a fact that the water is polluted reality". A fact depends on actuality (like the law of gravity) witnesses of some event or in scientific matters something that has been proven using the scientific method: Hypothesis, experiment, result (repetition of experiment with same results). neither creation nor evolution is a fact. No one witnessed it; it cannot be recreated in a lab. Both a matter of faith
keep kidding urself that. evolution is backed by a mountain of evidence. creationism is backed by nothing. im glad that in the 21st century religion is being shown for what it is, a bronze aged myth written by ignorant goat herders who knew nothing about science and the cosmos. religion is on decline, lets hope it continues. good debating you.
Evolution has occurred in the lab of farms all over the world. Farmers have bred cows for meat, and cows for milk. They have bred chickens for eggs and chickens for meat. They have bred wheat from original wild strains that might have 6-8 grains in the head to 24 grains in the head. They have even bred varieties of wheat with different percentages of protein and carbs for different jobs. Such as baking, and brewing. All that breeding on the farms is evolution in action.
"However, what is more plausible to believe that the amazing and wonderful world we live in came into existence by mere chance?"
be very careful when u stereotype the universe as "wonderful". remember that for every good thing about our universe there is something bad and flawed. would a creator really design a universe where the sun is going to eventually combust and make life impossible? where diseases and natural disaster kill us? where natare is as crual as it is? im not soo sure
You have a point, the moment you bring God into the equation, you bring something more complex and intelligent that somehow needs to be explained. However, what is more plausible to believe that the amazing and wonderful world we live in came into existence by mere chance? How can a thinking, rational mind come from mere inert matter? What about the moral code? How did the concept of good and evil evolve? your side of the equations has many questions nonetheless.
you said:"good and evil comes from common sense, love and respect of others. nothing to do will an invisible deity." Easier said than done. To do that you need a mind. You haven't answered how a living, thinking, rational mind came into existence from inert matter. We all know that only living things generate living things. For a criminal common sense might be hitting an old lady and robbing her. for someone else it is to give her his seat on a bus. Good and evil require absolutes!
"You haven't answered how a living, thinking, rational mind came into existence from inert matter."
im not a biologist, im not an authority to say , but we are products of evolution, that is an undisputed fact in the scientific world now. even if it the mind cant be explained (im sure it can be, im the wrong person to ask) but even if it can, its a massive leap of faith to go from, we cant explain it, god did it.
you say: "we are products of evolution, that is an undisputed fact in the scientific world." Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Even mr. richard dawkins doesn't know how life began and has entertained the idea that if it didn't start on earth, perhaps it was seeded by intelligent beings that for sure according to him evolved. What i am saying is that both views are not based on facts. No one was there for creation or for evolution. They both are theories. both require faith.
im sorry to say, u dont understand science. there is no such thing as "proof" or "facts" in science. for example if u ask me is the "theory of gravity" a fact (aka has it been proved?) then the answer is no. its true however that the theory of gravity is SUPPORTED by an overwhelming mountain of evidence. its the same with evoultion, yes its a theory like everything else in science, but like the theory of gravity, it is backed by...cont
Think of an anarchic society, kill or be killed. Only the strong survive, this works great for the strong individual till they age. Smart, strong individuals know that they will be over powered by a mob, and so must have friends too. So it limits the number of people you can be ruthless with. You must curry favour with some people so they will help you. This is the beginning of rules for a society. The morals of the bible match the morals of confuciuos and a few other "enlightened" religions.
You say "by chance". This is one of the most common misunderstandings about evolution. Evolution is not random chance. The initial mutations in the DNA are (it's called variation), but the processes governing natural selection are most definitely not "chance". Evolution is an alternative to chance.
to think that we might have a vice president tomorrow (the idiot palin) who believes the earth has only been around for a matter of thousands of years... And they actually consider allowing these people to govern us???
Oh by the way mr. dawkins, let's say that things did go as you say (only for the sake of argument of course), that in 4 billion years..long long long time the surviving species passed on genes that helped them fly better, swim better, hunt better. But how do you explain for example the symmetrical drawings on a butterfly's wings? You mean to tell me that mindless evolution is capable to produce Michelangelo like works of art? Actually even Michelangelo does not get close to that.
Yes, evolution (which is indeed mindless but is far from random) does account for the patterns on a butterfly's wings. Read a good book on the subject, unless you want to live in your ignorant world and try to refute the entire peer-reviewed scientific community with arguments that have been repeatedly disproven then go ahead. :)
"GEOLOGY GIVES US APPROXIMATELY 4 BILLIONS YEARS OF EARTH HISTORY". Now Mr. Dawkins you mean to tell me you can tell the rest of us mortals, that you know what was taking place on earth 151 million years ago? Have you an idea of how far back that is? And how about 2.2 billion years ago? What was earth like? What kind of animals were already living? You see history must be based on facts, evidence and preferably eyewitnesses. I am not fooled by your elegant eloquence. you may be deluded sir!
badmashabhi, yea.... true enough. But evidence by itself does not tell us "who dunn'it". So at the scene of the crime investigators need to look for fingerprints, clues that point to the murderer. Concerning the earth, man must look in an honest and rational fashion at the evidence. At the end of the day... one can choose to take a giant leap of faith in mere chance 4 billions years ago...or one can place his faith in an Intelligent Being, who created the earth and all it contains.
"At the end of the day... one can choose to take a giant leap of faith in mere chance 4 billions years ago...or one can place his faith in an Intelligent Being, who created the earth and all it contains. "
BUT god is NOT an explaination, because ur immediately creating something more complex and intelligent that what u are trying to explain in the first place. if u say there is a god, then fair enough, but the question still remains, who created god. you see the question is not...cont
I don't usually comment on what I see on here, and I'm still early in this one. But this is, as said, incredibly beautifully, eloquently and still understandably put. And from what I've seen from his other "lectures" is that he's equally eloquent when answering questions.
Darwinian evolution doesn't make atheism mandatory. Darwin was not alone in removing God from explanations for parts of the universe. Pierre-Simon Laplace explained the solar system scientifically. Friedrich Wöhler disproved vitalism by ynthesizing urea. David Hume argued that design was not necessary for the origin of life. Anyway, a deistic god could be behind the natural processes of evolution
Yes, but you immediately run into problems. Firstly, you're suddenly talking about something closer to the deist worldview, rather than the theist one, because god suddenly has no work to do. In that sense, it's very difficult to hold on the conventional theology, because god is not necessary beyond the setting up of the system. At that point, you may simply apply Occam's Razor and strip away the unnecessary, namely god.
I love Richard Dawkins. I find it kinda amusing that when he is asked about something only science related, he always has to end with 'so you see, we don;t have to resort to god'. lol he just has to kep getting it in there. love him.
vampirism is a blood disease. The immortality gene, originating perhaps in ancient egypt, finally met it's match in the form of... well, one bitten by bat one by wolf, I haven't heard how it developed from that but THE POINT IS it evolved to kill immortals and it worked. Werewolves become mortal, but good luck trying to kill it. Vampire slayers, as a family, pass down genes through Renards, Belnades, and Belmonts. But that isn't evolutionary biology, thats monster movie rubber science.
(cont'd)--there would be no previously existing competition for niches. so, its only natural that the fauna and flaura would fan out into all available niches.
also, the 70 million year mark accepted as the measure of the cambrian period is still an amazingly short time to see such a huge amount of diversity arise. but, instead of giving up and saying "we'll never understand how this happened, god must have done it," there are numerous hypotheses as to why it happened. this is around the time that free oxygen became available in the atmosphere. these were the first multicellular life forms, so it makes sense that there would be amazing diversity, since
If you're interested in this kind of accessible scientific knowledge, try a search for 'Why The Eye?' on Google. There's a very good site on the basics of evolution from the University of Berkeley that I strongly reccomend reading about.
The best current theory is high levels of oxygen in the atmosphere brought on by plant photosynthesis, which allowed for a very sudden period of biodiversity expansion. We know that oxygen is absolutely essential for multicellular life, simply because large organisms require a lot of energy. And we KNOW that at the time of the Cambrian explosion there was a massive increase of oxygen in the atmosphere. So this theory would make a great deal of sense.
Yes exactly! And since all life is in constant competition with each other, once oxygen levels permitted multicelled organisms to flourish it didn't take very long for cellular "arm races" to take place in which different species of organisms rapidly evolve ways of being more fit in response to other organisms undergoing the same process. And over time these arm races snowballed very quickly into many of the modern phylum's in existence today.
there is no known mechanism that allows the few simple organisms found in the precambrian level to have changed into the millions of complex creatures found in the cambrian level.
So genius how do you explain life on earth? Let me guess... a magical super being in the sky coughed it into existence..... Thought so. What exactly do you call evolution by natural selection? If its not a mechanism I don't know what is. The precambrian lasted approximately 4 billion years.......... You talk like life "suddenly" became complex from simple cells... The largest period in geologic time is "sudden".... I see you embrace creationist maths quite readily.
well you got he genius part right. Let you guess? that's all you do is guess.
Natural Selection has limits, we all know that. It is not a sufficient mechanism to account for the diversity we observe. however, facts and observations are not real big in the evolutionary theory scheme.
lastly it wasn't quite 4 billion but is was long. However the transition from the precambrian to the cambrian is only about 5 million years.that is way to short for natural selection to cause the diversity
Why does natural selection have limits? Slow change + millions of years = HUGE change. What is so complicated about this? Clearly you agree with the accepted model of the geologic time scale otherwise you wouldn't be so graciously informing us how long the Cambrian era was. Can you even comprehend how long 5-10 million years is? Probably not... Given the right ecological conditions... that period of time is PLENTY to produce all sorts of new phylums of life.
Selection having limits is a well established fact, not theory or hypothesis. We know this because scientists all over the world practice selective breeding. Notice the absecence of 200 pound chickens.
Secondly the Cambrian era, until recently was thought to have taken 50-70 million years. Also, dispite the new shorter time span the level of diversity discovered has increased. It's basically ignored because it turns darwins tree of life upside down.
in science, the word "theory" means what we colloquially refer to as fact. you cant call evolution a fact for the same reason you cant call gravity a fact--you have to always be willing to give it up if new evidence arises that contradicts it. selective breeding has brought about huge changes in species, including humans (lactose tolerance), corn, and dogs. there arent 200 pound chickens because we cant control the rate at which random genetic mutations occur.
"there arent 200 pound chickens because we cant control the rate at which random genetic mutations occur."
you are exactly correct. Selection has limitations, Random mutations are needed for the vast diversity we see. we must be really lucky for all of these billions of beneficial random mutations to have occured giving us this vast world of diversity.
actually, you dont have to be very lucky. you just need a very long time (geological/chemical dating evidence shows that life has had that) and natural selection. the majority of genetic mutations are selection neutral--they have no impact on the organisms chances of survival. a smaller amount have a negative effect, and a still smaller amount have a positive effect. the poor genes cause their organism to die (and bring the bad genes along w/ them), while the good genes are passed on.
Well the majority of the utltra major mutations happened between the precambrian and cambrian periods. We used to think that the cambrian period lasted around 70 million years. We now have evidence that the cambrian level is even more diverse than previously suspected and lasted only about 5 million years. that is more diverity and a reduction factor of 14 times in the amount of time for all of these favorable mutations. considering the number of mutations needed 5 millioin years is a blink.
i would love to know what evidence points to a 5 million year cambrian period. also, again, i suggest you watch these vids, because dawkins shows that using a designer argument actually takes a step backward. you're saying, "look at the animals of this period, they are very complex, and therefore very improbable. they must have been designed." but the designer would have to be at least as complex, and therefore, at least as improbable, as the things he designed.
"The structure of Evolutionary Theory" Steven Jay Gould, Harvard press. I think this holds a little more credibility than a You Tube video. go read it. He is a big supporter of evolution but at least the bullshit that you believe will be up to date.
"Well the majority of the utltra major mutations happened between the precambrian and cambrian periods."
Fail. Most complex chemical processes, including the Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, mitochondrial energy production, etc. were all evolved in the 3 billion years prior to multi-cellularity. The only important mutation during the Cambraan explosion was multi-cellularity--everything else, all the weird shapes, all the funky looking animals, were just variations on the theme.
Respiration is not a complex process. Skeletons are nothing but hard cells. Early Cambrian life didn't have limbs. The eyes were pinholes, none of them had brains to speak of, the nervous system is just a network of conductive cells, and the digestive systems were nothing but tubes with acid in them.
Hooya you need to do a little more reading. Skeletal stuctures require so much more than"Skeletons are nothing but hard cells."
Now you are just saying stuff, I mean... get real. tendons, muscles, nerves, cartlidge,joints that work, lubrication, spinal cords. Hard cells? sheesh I mean who are you listening to. dude you need new professors or something. maybe change your major. when you get older you might understand more.
You're too easy Hooya. but you are learning from me which is good.
Lol you know that's bullshit mejc, come on. Skeletons are nothing more than hard cells; tendons and muscles are virtually the same thing, cells which contract (or "tense") under electric shocks. Nerves are nothing but conduits. Joints are nothing but pockets of bone that fit together, lubricant nothing but a slick chemical between them. If you know anything about early Cambrianites you know they were mostly invertebrates.
You're too ignorant mejc, but you are learning from me which is good.
Nothing is nothing. everything else is something. when you say this or that is nothing but.... the but that you mention is a highly complex system. Joints... must be formed and fit perfectly.. lubricants must be delivered and held in place... ect ect ect....
"Joints... must be formed and fit perfectly.." Not true; a joint with an imperfect fit is still more flexible than a solid chunk of bone. Besides, most Cambrianites had limited mobility with restrictive bone joints.
"lubricants must be delivered and held in place..." We're talking about animals, not cars. In animals, the cells within the joints produce a natural lubricant. And lubricant isn't required for function, it only eases movement.
Come on mejc, do you know anything about anatomy?
actually I do. ok let me rephrase not must but do. also you are correct, joints can funtion with bone against bone but they don't. your claim that the mutations found in the cambrian explosion are minor is well just silly.
however, youth lacks wisdom. when you get older hooya, and you start to get out into the world and realize that we don't really understand anything.
Maybe you won't be such an easy target, but for now.
"also you are correct, joints can funtion with bone against bone but they don't."
Actually, all of the early Cambrian species had extremely simple bone joints--nothing but cracked bones with muscles to move them. Certainly, none of them had the complex rotating joints found in modern animals, or the multi-piece wrist bones of modern animals.
"hooya, do you realize what an immense stroke of coincidence a mutation that created DNA information to cause a skeletal system to form would be."
One mutation? You really don't understand evolution...
A mutation to harden some cells first--perhaps as defense, or simply a way of remaining upright? Mutation allowing spread of the hardened cells through the organism, mutation forming muscles around the bone, allowing for slight flexing, mutation of segmentation allowing for more flex...
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that this is the way it actually happened, just that 1. it probably didn't happen in one mutation and 2. there was no coincidence, every intermediate step had a purpose which was selected for.
You seem some what intelligent or I wouldn't even be responding to you.
This is a serious question.
Mathematically speaking, at what point is something so improbable that it's probability is really zero.
That is where I really believe we are with mutations causing the diversity we see.
If you told me there was one spectacularly improbable mutation that caused x...ok, maybe, But millions of them? In only five million years? I don't agree
"Mathematically speaking, at what point is something so improbable that it's probability is really zero."
It depends on the number of repetitions. Obviously, if you flip a coin 50 times, the chance of them being all heads is vanishingly small. However, if you flip the coin 10^50 times, the chance of getting 50 heads in a row increases dramatically.
"That is where I really believe we are with mutations causing the diversity we see." Well obviously I disagree =).
"If you told me there was one spectacularly improbable mutation that caused x...ok, maybe, But millions of them? In only five million years? I don't agree"
Why do you say millions? If already shown that a simple skeletal structure could be developed with only a couple hundred* at most, by small, gradual steps.
*assuming that appropriate muscle placement and fracturing, and nerve attachments, take hundreds of tiny changes*
"But millions of them? In only five million years?"
What is the average reproduction time of a fish? One year? So when we're talking about 5 million years, we're talking about 5 million generations of fish. Keep in mind that each generation is itself made of perhaps millions of fish.
Is it really at all surprising that thousands of variations of fish (although all jaw-less and most gill-less) could arise in a virtually uncontested environment in 5 million years?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I mean pre cambrian to cambrian.
No eyes or system for an eye to complex visual systems. No bones to bones. No limbs to limbs. A sexual reprodution to sexual. The array of questions thus coincidences is vast and immense. by what mechanism does the new information arise. selection cannot create things only change them. there are limits to selection. Hence mutations are needed but at what point do we just say, Oh come on there is no evidence for the story we are telling.
"No eyes or system for an eye to complex visual systems." Precambrian cells had photosensitivity; Cambrian animals had simple pinhole eyes (as I've already stated) not the fully enclosed orbitals of today.
"No bones to bones." I've already explained 3 times the simplicity of bones.
"A sexual [sic] reprodution to sexual." Splitting genes and duplicating them compared to splitting genes and exchanging them? That is not a big difference.
Dawkins is articulate and persuasive.
8bobthebuilder 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
maybe our brains have evolved to inlfluence the world in a certain way i.e we don't perceive all the empty space... maybe like how we collapse the wave functions
quuanttum 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Dawkins has some nerve. He always says religion causes so much death... science does too.
mnagmobile 10 months ago
@mnagmobile Science simply refers to the truth about how things are.
Alexdurrant7 9 months ago 2
@Alexdurrant7 It's too bad something so simple and elegant is hated so much.
mnagmobile 9 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 no, science refers to a method, and the body of work that results from its application. scientific truths are not absolute. they are always changing, always being improved.
rysw19 7 months ago 2
Dawkins keep using this genetic code argument. How does that imply evolution? I read The Greatest Show on Earth (twice) but I still do not understand it. How does the fact that more distant animals share less genes imply that they are on a family tree? To me the strongest evidence is the bits of junk DNA that look like deteriorated genes from other creatures.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 I really can´t see why you have a problem understanding this, I really don´t, it seems to me to be as plain as the nose on your face. Read it again, slower.
yatter1 1 year ago
@yatter1 I've heard it over and over in Dawkins form. I'll try asking a biology professor. Obviously more similar animals share more genes, that is why they are more similar. That could be true if they were individually created (which, to be clear, I do not believe for a second)
If you understand it more deeply please do tell.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 What is your problem? Family members will obviously share more similarities, the further apart we are, the lñess are the similarities, I don´t see that this can be an issue of import! I genuinely don´t see what your problem is. Really I don´t.
yatter1 1 year ago
@yatter1 There is no problem. Don't get upset here. I am genuinely trying to understand. Just think about what I am saying. Animals that are more similar would have more DNA in common if evolution was true. They would also have more DNA in common if they were individually created. Two blueprints for similar buildings have a lot of the same specifications. Since it is compatible with either theory, not that ID is a valid theory, it can't be used to prove one over the other, right?
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 In the light which, if evolution and ID are subjected to Occam´s razor, it becomes very clear where the two "theories" stand doesn´t it?.
yatter1 1 year ago
@yatter1 Yes, but that is hardly the most convincing evidence for evolution. Now pseudogenes. Those are convincing. Why would we have useless genes that look like superannuated versions of genes in other animals if we were individually created?
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 i couldn´t agree more my friend
yatter1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1
Well there's no reason at all each animal species would have the same DNA code if they were created separately. You've just asserted that they would. If you just try and make the facts fit your beliefs, you might succeed. By your argument, there's absolutely no reason a bat would be closer related to a human than to a bird. Or a whale closer to a human than to a fish. (After all, they do LOOK similar- no logic from the creator at all)
matthewjhaywood 1 year ago
@matthewjhaywood My argument is that I don't understand Dawkins argument
Although it has been a few months and I did a little more research and talked to some biologists. Now I think I understand it. Any gene that you decide to sequence gives you exactly the same family tree. Still I think Dawkins could do a better job of explaining it.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1
He gives a much better explanation in "The Greatest Show on Earth" than he has done in interviews.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis He does, although I still have some questions about it.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1
What are they?
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis The fact that more similar animals have more genes in common with each just makes sense. It could easily be true if all life was designed, like the similar bits of computer code you find in similar applications. So, as I understand, the point is that WHICH EVER GENE you look at in comparing relatedness, it produces exactly the same tree of life. Is that the point? I understood the part about DNA bonding between species, but it was not totally clear how he applied that.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1
It's not just the fact that they're "more similar". It's the fact that genetic patterns match so many other facts- in fact, in many cases the most similar looking animals DONT share more genes. Some fish are closer related to mammals than they are to other fish. For example, from fossil evidence we know that fish are a LOT older than whales. However, if they'd been designed, fish would surely share a lot in common with whales. It's the fact that the genes fit in with the other facts.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis If whales had to go from lobe finned fishes to mammals and back to the sea, then of course theyre going to be a lot older than some fish. When you say the genetic patterns match "so many other facts," what other facts do you mean? Would you mind explaining this a little?
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1
Well the genetics are exactly what you'd expect given the geographical distribution of fossils as well as the dating of fossils (for a start). For example, genetic algorithms tell us that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived about 6 million years ago. So if you then found human fossils in india 7 million years old and chimpanzee in africa 7 million years old, you know something's gone wrong. In reality, they all match as they'd be expected to.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis Makes sense. Except dating splits at 3 million years ago vs 30 million years by looking at the genetic code seems problematic. Some species have gone relatively unchanged for longer than that, except neutral mutations.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1
Yeah there are plenty of problems, it's never as simple as it sounds and the best you can usually hope for is an estimate. I think the main thing about evolution is that all the various pieces of evidence match each other- there are no intense anomalies. With the genetics also, it's important to point out that a very important fact is that we understand the mechanism by which natural selection occurs (i.e random mutations). This makes the idea of a fixed species unbelievable.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis So what is your point. Unbelievable isn't the scientific method. 'God', why are there so many dumb-witted "atheists" who do nothing but set back the whole progress of the rest of the science community...
mnagmobile 10 months ago
@mnagmobile
Why not dive into the middle of a discussion and say something completely useless?
GodTheHypothesis 10 months ago 2
3:51 Paula has an orgasm
jackasslobo 1 year ago
@jackasslobo lol. Sounded like a chair to me.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
SCIENCE OR GOD
navinmnrk 1 year ago
science
kokofan50 1 year ago
both
mixxmexx 1 year ago
@kokofan50 i agree
navinmnrk 9 months ago
Comment removed
Piscivorus 2 years ago
It really sounds like he says ''Octopussies''
SharinganKakashii 2 years ago
Wtf wont this load and the others do
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
he said octopuses but he should have said octopi. it would have made me laugh
keidai3 2 years ago
Evolution is elegant, beautiful despite death being a key dynamic.
GeorgesBarras 2 years ago 44
it's only normal that to humans, death seems unjust. I mean as living beings, our main instinct is survival, it's our drive, a greed that everyone shares. The inevitable blackness that waits for us at the ends therefor seems to contradict the very nature of our existence, at least so most of us will figure. That's why many people will cling to spiritual belief, they are simply unable to accept that death is simply the end of our natural purpose and not the gateway to afterlife.
luckynum1107 2 years ago 16
Well put.
GeorgesBarras 2 years ago
Luckynum1107 reading your note made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end, beautifully written, almost poetic and inescapable true. In away its a sad curse that being an ape that can think in an on matters outside of our existance that we can think of, and fear our own mortality. Great post thanks
shaunad1967 2 years ago
ha ha your funny.. beautiful???? lol okie dokie
BigG99 2 years ago
@GeorgesBarras *fan fare* Let's all have a warm welcome for Captain Obvious!!
mnagmobile 10 months ago
@GeorgesBarras Absolutely. But as Brian Malow pointed out, at one point in evolution, when we dropped asexual reproduction, we essentially traded immortality for sex. I'm still not sure which is better - maybe evolution got it wrong at least once :)
geordietoddy 4 months ago
@geordietoddy i sure wish we were immortal, but without death there can be no change in an overall race, thus forth, we would be bacteria. better to be a dying human, than an immortal bacteria.
awesomeskier12345 1 month ago
@awesomeskier12345 Well, you say that there could be no changes if we were immortal bacteria, but we don't know that. I mean sure, It didn't play out that way - that's not to say it COULDN'T. Who knows what nature's actually capable of.
Just being pedantic of course. :)
geordietoddy 1 month ago
Comment removed
Hashishin13 2 years ago
Humans stopped evolving.
Why? because if they can't survive on their own others will make them survive. Blind people get dogs, people who are born without working legs get a weelchair, etc. So everyone, even with bad genes, can survive and reproduce.
Too bad.
d4m4s74 2 years ago
Not entirely. Asthma still kills people, people resistant to epidemic type infectious organisms like viruses and bacteria are more likely to survive and reproduce. Also I guess people who don't get as much energy out of fat in the united states are more likely to be skinny and not die from heart disease. Oh yea but that only counts if they die before they have kids.
There is still some evolution, just not much.
Hashishin13 2 years ago
Too bad? Are you serious? This kind of thinking is exactly what laymen always find shocking about evolution. What is a bad gene anyway? If you can survive and reproduce than obviously you have been "fit enough". Evolution is a natural law and not a rule we should base our society on.
And humans didn't stop evolving. This is impossible as evolution is a process which is inherent to life. Change over time. One example is that the average human is now taller than 100 years ago.
Rogi1988 2 years ago
however, I think the idea behind the initial comment still has some relevance. Humans have distorted the natural process of things through a creative process of their own. Technology is more and more present in our lives and as it now stands it is taking over, undoing the natural process of how living organisms progress . Before long I suspect that we will literally become technology. (CONT...)
luckynum1107 2 years ago
Microchip (still prototypes for now) implanted within the brain and controlled by uploaded software can regulate disorders in the nervous system, caused by diseases like parkinson's
luckynum1107 2 years ago
@luckynum1107 Or better still, no impants, just the ability to hear/decode radio waves with our evolved organs...
geordietoddy 1 month ago
@d4m4s74 We do still evolve. That's why the odd person is born without canine teeth (for chewing raw meats) and without their little toes (for clinging on to branches). (you only need 4 toes on each foot to assist balance, the little pinky is for climbing.
geordietoddy 1 month ago
carl, sagan the 2nd . go richard
siliconchipped 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins is a legend. He deserves all of the credit he gets for his work.
mattyrm 2 years ago 76
whew I was worried when he said we were 100 percent sure evolution is a fact. Im like oh please mention that the fact of evolution is different from the theory of evolution that explains the consequences of it. Creationists will pounce on that if you dont.
boorens18 2 years ago
holy shit man that last thing he sayed was creapy. octopuses are fuckin nasty man
thcmdma 2 years ago 2
my cousin octopus....
goonerash 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
pfff, boring. Did he really need 9 minutes just to say that?
NightmarishGuy 2 years ago
Why don't you go watch some exciting pokemon videos then kid? This man is trying to provide a solid explaination for the host because she asked for it. If you aren't willing to watch it, get outta here and watch something more suitable for your infantile mind.
Believe it or not, this isn't logical for most creationists, but again, nothing seems to meet their crazy logical standards anyways except perhaps contradictions....
hellhammerz666 2 years ago 14
Comment removed
NightmarishGuy 2 years ago
I found it very stimulating. Are you really 16, because your comment is something a 15 year old might say.
CONSIDERyou 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
evolution is a lie. I N THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH. The only TRUE GOD is the GOD of the BIBLE. HE is the only ALLMIGHTY GOD. YES THAT IS TRUE.
fettkatt87 2 years ago
what use is it to spew this crap? there is a reason as time goes on, the number of people who believe in god decreases. evidence piles on as time passes, but your argument remains tired, unchanged, and completely evidence free.
letsgetsurgical 2 years ago 7
It's the job of a true Christian to say how wrong everybody else is, do they ever think that the real god might be Thor with his mighty hammer? They probably think Thor was imaginary, but not theirs! btw hitting your Caps Lock or holding Shift doesn't make your delusions any more true, you crazy kook!
BirdFantastic 2 years ago 5
@BirdFantastic I think a lot of Christians miss the point about their duty to evangelise. The idea is to inform people about Jesus, then to respect their free will - whatever the outcome. So I don't really mind them saying "have you heard the wondrous story of Jesus?", because I can just answer "yes I have, please go away now", it's the ones that think it's their duty to CONVERT your belief to theirs - they're the ones I want to punch.
geordietoddy 1 month ago
If you don't like this video or it offences you watch something else. We don't want to hear your fairytale delusions.
SocialistAtheist1986 2 years ago 3
how about you shut the fuck up
juchel 2 years ago
Dawkins is truly one of the greatest intellectuals of our kind.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago 15
thats ok for you to say....
youre 107, and still pc compotent...
goonerash 2 years ago
actually I'm MUCH older, youtube won't allow me to show my mighty true age /faints
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
Octopi, Dawkins, its octopi.
Operation2 3 years ago
No it isn't. It's actually octopus'. It's one of those things that people who weren't as clever as they thought they were invented. Stephen Fry says so, and he reads books and stuff.
LordRushbrookGCSE 3 years ago 4
It can be used both ways according to the Oxford dictionary.
Operation2 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I HAVE SCIENTIFIC,LOGICAL,AND UNDISPUTABLE PROOF of the exsistance of god,this is recently discovered and the reason why more and more scientists are now believers in God.I dont believe in Faith,and thank god i have found a logical way of proving his exsistance and i can show anyone who is interested the proof so they too can have a logical understanding.I was an atheist most of my life and i spent my time studying science and after 18 years I finally figured out the truth. PEACE!!!!!
Nickspasic 3 years ago
You're an idiot. If you had indisputable proof of the existence of god, it would be called science. As science does not teach the existence of god then you do not have indisputable proof.
shashintokyo 3 years ago 8
Much as I like Dawkins, he made a booboo in his enthusiasm. Not every cell contains DNA. Red blood cells don't.
And before the morons jump on this, that error does NOT invalidate anything about evolution, or prove that Dawkins is an idiot.
bdf2718 3 years ago 4
It's like poetry, but better.
SatanicCod 3 years ago 3
Thats right, I rather prefer Dawkings than Neruda. And I'm a poet.
arturopablo 3 years ago
I'm not a theist, but the two pieces of evidence he presents for evolution are terrible:
1) Overlapping genes in the DNA between two species, occuring family-tree-like after generations.
- But if we were created, the creator would no doubt create arms, legs, eyes, etc. by using the same genes for each species.
2) Species are perfectly suited for their environments,
- But if we were created, the creator would ensure that organisms be able to survive in their environments.
alyssa0089 3 years ago
You have a point about that...but he also mentions the "worthless" genes that we have and that dont do anything.
Altough they are no superior evidence for evolution they are (at least for me) a strong indicator that there was no intelligent designer...why would a concious and allknowing intelligence create unused data?
So I think his overall presentation here made a quite strong case that evolution is the best theory of creation there is so far.
flottpale1 3 years ago
If we were created by a designer, he would have given us eyes like an octopus rather than eyes like ours.
You have a blind spot. Octopuses don't. Game over, man.
bdf2718 3 years ago 5
well, with the supposition that we were a God's exact image creation, i presume God has a very hazardous flaw too
draconnis12345 3 years ago 2
But God is perfect! At least one ontological argument uses God's perfection as "proof" of God's existence. So it's perfect to be flawed?
Which is why the apologists then say "image" is metaphorical. Which may perhaps be so. Why would God have a penis and testicles?
But either way God is a crappy designer. Impacted wisdom teeth. Inflamed appendix. Back pain. Etc.
bdf2718 3 years ago
whaow nice point
MangooseGod 2 years ago
Few species are PERFECTLY suited for their environments. They good, but not the best an intelligent designer with omni-everything could do.
Evolution has to make do with what it already has and make small, incremental changes which can only ever be in the direction of immediate improvement. There's no going through several stages that are less-suited because from there you can get to something a lot better.
What we see is the result of evolution: survival not perfect fit.
bdf2718 3 years ago 5
..an overwhelming mountain of evidence. so its as "true" as anything in the scientific world. i assume by hearing ur denial of evolution that u are religious. u need to get over the fact that 95% of the worlds biologists agree that evolution happened and is still happning.
eddieindahouse 3 years ago
definition of fact:"actuality, certainty; truth, verity, gospel. antonym lie, fiction". it is a fact that the water is polluted reality". A fact depends on actuality (like the law of gravity) witnesses of some event or in scientific matters something that has been proven using the scientific method: Hypothesis, experiment, result (repetition of experiment with same results). neither creation nor evolution is a fact. No one witnessed it; it cannot be recreated in a lab. Both a matter of faith
bohinj53 3 years ago
"Both a matter of faith "
keep kidding urself that. evolution is backed by a mountain of evidence. creationism is backed by nothing. im glad that in the 21st century religion is being shown for what it is, a bronze aged myth written by ignorant goat herders who knew nothing about science and the cosmos. religion is on decline, lets hope it continues. good debating you.
eddieindahouse 3 years ago 3
Evolution has occurred in the lab of farms all over the world. Farmers have bred cows for meat, and cows for milk. They have bred chickens for eggs and chickens for meat. They have bred wheat from original wild strains that might have 6-8 grains in the head to 24 grains in the head. They have even bred varieties of wheat with different percentages of protein and carbs for different jobs. Such as baking, and brewing. All that breeding on the farms is evolution in action.
adolthitler 3 years ago 4
"neither creation nor evolution is a fact"
i dont think you know what fact in the scientific terms means, nor theory. perhaps u should enlighten yourself before making accusations.
ChemEBeaver 3 years ago
"However, what is more plausible to believe that the amazing and wonderful world we live in came into existence by mere chance?"
be very careful when u stereotype the universe as "wonderful". remember that for every good thing about our universe there is something bad and flawed. would a creator really design a universe where the sun is going to eventually combust and make life impossible? where diseases and natural disaster kill us? where natare is as crual as it is? im not soo sure
eddieindahouse 3 years ago
...answered by a god. a god only creates more questions than it does answers.
eddieindahouse 3 years ago
You have a point, the moment you bring God into the equation, you bring something more complex and intelligent that somehow needs to be explained. However, what is more plausible to believe that the amazing and wonderful world we live in came into existence by mere chance? How can a thinking, rational mind come from mere inert matter? What about the moral code? How did the concept of good and evil evolve? your side of the equations has many questions nonetheless.
bohinj53 3 years ago
"How did the concept of good and evil evolve? your side of the equations has many questions nonetheless. "
good and evil comes from common sense, love and respect of others. nothing to do will an invisible deity
eddieindahouse 3 years ago 2
you said:"good and evil comes from common sense, love and respect of others. nothing to do will an invisible deity." Easier said than done. To do that you need a mind. You haven't answered how a living, thinking, rational mind came into existence from inert matter. We all know that only living things generate living things. For a criminal common sense might be hitting an old lady and robbing her. for someone else it is to give her his seat on a bus. Good and evil require absolutes!
bohinj53 3 years ago
"You haven't answered how a living, thinking, rational mind came into existence from inert matter."
im not a biologist, im not an authority to say , but we are products of evolution, that is an undisputed fact in the scientific world now. even if it the mind cant be explained (im sure it can be, im the wrong person to ask) but even if it can, its a massive leap of faith to go from, we cant explain it, god did it.
eddieindahouse 3 years ago
you say: "we are products of evolution, that is an undisputed fact in the scientific world." Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Even mr. richard dawkins doesn't know how life began and has entertained the idea that if it didn't start on earth, perhaps it was seeded by intelligent beings that for sure according to him evolved. What i am saying is that both views are not based on facts. No one was there for creation or for evolution. They both are theories. both require faith.
bohinj53 3 years ago
"Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory"
im sorry to say, u dont understand science. there is no such thing as "proof" or "facts" in science. for example if u ask me is the "theory of gravity" a fact (aka has it been proved?) then the answer is no. its true however that the theory of gravity is SUPPORTED by an overwhelming mountain of evidence. its the same with evoultion, yes its a theory like everything else in science, but like the theory of gravity, it is backed by...cont
eddieindahouse 3 years ago
Think of an anarchic society, kill or be killed. Only the strong survive, this works great for the strong individual till they age. Smart, strong individuals know that they will be over powered by a mob, and so must have friends too. So it limits the number of people you can be ruthless with. You must curry favour with some people so they will help you. This is the beginning of rules for a society. The morals of the bible match the morals of confuciuos and a few other "enlightened" religions.
adolthitler 3 years ago
You say "by chance". This is one of the most common misunderstandings about evolution. Evolution is not random chance. The initial mutations in the DNA are (it's called variation), but the processes governing natural selection are most definitely not "chance". Evolution is an alternative to chance.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
to think that we might have a vice president tomorrow (the idiot palin) who believes the earth has only been around for a matter of thousands of years... And they actually consider allowing these people to govern us???
gavinsstuff 3 years ago
Oh by the way mr. dawkins, let's say that things did go as you say (only for the sake of argument of course), that in 4 billion years..long long long time the surviving species passed on genes that helped them fly better, swim better, hunt better. But how do you explain for example the symmetrical drawings on a butterfly's wings? You mean to tell me that mindless evolution is capable to produce Michelangelo like works of art? Actually even Michelangelo does not get close to that.
bohinj53 3 years ago
Yes, evolution (which is indeed mindless but is far from random) does account for the patterns on a butterfly's wings. Read a good book on the subject, unless you want to live in your ignorant world and try to refute the entire peer-reviewed scientific community with arguments that have been repeatedly disproven then go ahead. :)
AtheistBrit 2 years ago 2
"GEOLOGY GIVES US APPROXIMATELY 4 BILLIONS YEARS OF EARTH HISTORY". Now Mr. Dawkins you mean to tell me you can tell the rest of us mortals, that you know what was taking place on earth 151 million years ago? Have you an idea of how far back that is? And how about 2.2 billion years ago? What was earth like? What kind of animals were already living? You see history must be based on facts, evidence and preferably eyewitnesses. I am not fooled by your elegant eloquence. you may be deluded sir!
bohinj53 3 years ago
evidence like said earlier doesn't need to be 'eye-witnessed'. A murder-scene may not have eye-witnesses but it has evidence.
badmashabhi 3 years ago
badmashabhi, yea.... true enough. But evidence by itself does not tell us "who dunn'it". So at the scene of the crime investigators need to look for fingerprints, clues that point to the murderer. Concerning the earth, man must look in an honest and rational fashion at the evidence. At the end of the day... one can choose to take a giant leap of faith in mere chance 4 billions years ago...or one can place his faith in an Intelligent Being, who created the earth and all it contains.
bohinj53 3 years ago
"At the end of the day... one can choose to take a giant leap of faith in mere chance 4 billions years ago...or one can place his faith in an Intelligent Being, who created the earth and all it contains. "
BUT god is NOT an explaination, because ur immediately creating something more complex and intelligent that what u are trying to explain in the first place. if u say there is a god, then fair enough, but the question still remains, who created god. you see the question is not...cont
eddieindahouse 3 years ago
I don't usually comment on what I see on here, and I'm still early in this one. But this is, as said, incredibly beautifully, eloquently and still understandably put. And from what I've seen from his other "lectures" is that he's equally eloquent when answering questions.
Ryszze 3 years ago 3
This is Dawkins at his best, talking brilliantly and elegantly about evolution.
4mattb 3 years ago 14
Darwinian evolution doesn't make atheism mandatory. Darwin was not alone in removing God from explanations for parts of the universe. Pierre-Simon Laplace explained the solar system scientifically. Friedrich Wöhler disproved vitalism by ynthesizing urea. David Hume argued that design was not necessary for the origin of life. Anyway, a deistic god could be behind the natural processes of evolution
Intraquarkic 3 years ago 6
Yes, but you immediately run into problems. Firstly, you're suddenly talking about something closer to the deist worldview, rather than the theist one, because god suddenly has no work to do. In that sense, it's very difficult to hold on the conventional theology, because god is not necessary beyond the setting up of the system. At that point, you may simply apply Occam's Razor and strip away the unnecessary, namely god.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
I love Richard Dawkins. I find it kinda amusing that when he is asked about something only science related, he always has to end with 'so you see, we don;t have to resort to god'. lol he just has to kep getting it in there. love him.
TheFemaleDurden 3 years ago 40
@TheFemaleDurden yeah in a special way dawkins and god go hand in hand
Serpico261 1 year ago
Each time he says, "...in every generation," my brain automatically supplies, "...a Slayer is born". Can't help it; completely automatic.
I wonder if evolution could explain vampires and Slayers, if they existed. ;)
BionicDance 3 years ago 11
Hahahaha
kitsunde 3 years ago 3
vampirism is a blood disease. The immortality gene, originating perhaps in ancient egypt, finally met it's match in the form of... well, one bitten by bat one by wolf, I haven't heard how it developed from that but THE POINT IS it evolved to kill immortals and it worked. Werewolves become mortal, but good luck trying to kill it. Vampire slayers, as a family, pass down genes through Renards, Belnades, and Belmonts. But that isn't evolutionary biology, thats monster movie rubber science.
egdeltur666 3 years ago 2
Seems to me that there's more than a little Video Game Science in there as well...
BionicDance 3 years ago
This even beats growing up in the universe, dawkins is kinda bright :D
lordmyrrah 3 years ago 4
(cont'd)--there would be no previously existing competition for niches. so, its only natural that the fauna and flaura would fan out into all available niches.
raveryyyy 3 years ago
also, the 70 million year mark accepted as the measure of the cambrian period is still an amazingly short time to see such a huge amount of diversity arise. but, instead of giving up and saying "we'll never understand how this happened, god must have done it," there are numerous hypotheses as to why it happened. this is around the time that free oxygen became available in the atmosphere. these were the first multicellular life forms, so it makes sense that there would be amazing diversity, since
raveryyyy 3 years ago
he has to take care of his voice... I never heard him like this :( Dawkins reminds me to Carl Sagan, it is so nice to listen to him.
aleterra 3 years ago 2
Richard Dawkins makes me feel happy.
kinderfucker 3 years ago 5
Richard Dawkins makes me THINK.
Swa6543 3 years ago 3
That, too. Mostly, I just sit back and enjoy his awesomeness.
kinderfucker 3 years ago 4
cousins to octopie! lol!... this is awesome... ive really never looked at things this way. excellent video!
fr3d420 3 years ago
Dawkins is good at what he does.
If you're interested in this kind of accessible scientific knowledge, try a search for 'Why The Eye?' on Google. There's a very good site on the basics of evolution from the University of Berkeley that I strongly reccomend reading about.
UbiquitousChe 3 years ago
I wonder what was the reason behind the Cambrian explosion, where there is a sudden emergence of lots of biological diversity.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
The best current theory is high levels of oxygen in the atmosphere brought on by plant photosynthesis, which allowed for a very sudden period of biodiversity expansion. We know that oxygen is absolutely essential for multicellular life, simply because large organisms require a lot of energy. And we KNOW that at the time of the Cambrian explosion there was a massive increase of oxygen in the atmosphere. So this theory would make a great deal of sense.
tobyw87 3 years ago
So a simple way to say it would be that the oxygen density reached a threshold point for the energy requirements of multicellular life?
BayerLexan 3 years ago
Yes exactly! And since all life is in constant competition with each other, once oxygen levels permitted multicelled organisms to flourish it didn't take very long for cellular "arm races" to take place in which different species of organisms rapidly evolve ways of being more fit in response to other organisms undergoing the same process. And over time these arm races snowballed very quickly into many of the modern phylum's in existence today.
tobyw87 3 years ago 2
there is no known mechanism that allows the few simple organisms found in the precambrian level to have changed into the millions of complex creatures found in the cambrian level.
mejc2 3 years ago
So genius how do you explain life on earth? Let me guess... a magical super being in the sky coughed it into existence..... Thought so. What exactly do you call evolution by natural selection? If its not a mechanism I don't know what is. The precambrian lasted approximately 4 billion years.......... You talk like life "suddenly" became complex from simple cells... The largest period in geologic time is "sudden".... I see you embrace creationist maths quite readily.
tobyw87 3 years ago 2
well you got he genius part right. Let you guess? that's all you do is guess.
Natural Selection has limits, we all know that. It is not a sufficient mechanism to account for the diversity we observe. however, facts and observations are not real big in the evolutionary theory scheme.
lastly it wasn't quite 4 billion but is was long. However the transition from the precambrian to the cambrian is only about 5 million years.that is way to short for natural selection to cause the diversity
mejc2 3 years ago
Why does natural selection have limits? Slow change + millions of years = HUGE change. What is so complicated about this? Clearly you agree with the accepted model of the geologic time scale otherwise you wouldn't be so graciously informing us how long the Cambrian era was. Can you even comprehend how long 5-10 million years is? Probably not... Given the right ecological conditions... that period of time is PLENTY to produce all sorts of new phylums of life.
printerpower966 3 years ago 3
first of all.
Selection having limits is a well established fact, not theory or hypothesis. We know this because scientists all over the world practice selective breeding. Notice the absecence of 200 pound chickens.
Secondly the Cambrian era, until recently was thought to have taken 50-70 million years. Also, dispite the new shorter time span the level of diversity discovered has increased. It's basically ignored because it turns darwins tree of life upside down.
mejc2 3 years ago
in science, the word "theory" means what we colloquially refer to as fact. you cant call evolution a fact for the same reason you cant call gravity a fact--you have to always be willing to give it up if new evidence arises that contradicts it. selective breeding has brought about huge changes in species, including humans (lactose tolerance), corn, and dogs. there arent 200 pound chickens because we cant control the rate at which random genetic mutations occur.
raveryyyy 3 years ago
"there arent 200 pound chickens because we cant control the rate at which random genetic mutations occur."
you are exactly correct. Selection has limitations, Random mutations are needed for the vast diversity we see. we must be really lucky for all of these billions of beneficial random mutations to have occured giving us this vast world of diversity.
mejc2 3 years ago
actually, you dont have to be very lucky. you just need a very long time (geological/chemical dating evidence shows that life has had that) and natural selection. the majority of genetic mutations are selection neutral--they have no impact on the organisms chances of survival. a smaller amount have a negative effect, and a still smaller amount have a positive effect. the poor genes cause their organism to die (and bring the bad genes along w/ them), while the good genes are passed on.
raveryyyy 3 years ago
Well the majority of the utltra major mutations happened between the precambrian and cambrian periods. We used to think that the cambrian period lasted around 70 million years. We now have evidence that the cambrian level is even more diverse than previously suspected and lasted only about 5 million years. that is more diverity and a reduction factor of 14 times in the amount of time for all of these favorable mutations. considering the number of mutations needed 5 millioin years is a blink.
mejc2 3 years ago
i would love to know what evidence points to a 5 million year cambrian period. also, again, i suggest you watch these vids, because dawkins shows that using a designer argument actually takes a step backward. you're saying, "look at the animals of this period, they are very complex, and therefore very improbable. they must have been designed." but the designer would have to be at least as complex, and therefore, at least as improbable, as the things he designed.
raveryyyy 3 years ago
"The structure of Evolutionary Theory" Steven Jay Gould, Harvard press. I think this holds a little more credibility than a You Tube video. go read it. He is a big supporter of evolution but at least the bullshit that you believe will be up to date.
mejc2 3 years ago
"Well the majority of the utltra major mutations happened between the precambrian and cambrian periods."
Fail. Most complex chemical processes, including the Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, mitochondrial energy production, etc. were all evolved in the 3 billion years prior to multi-cellularity. The only important mutation during the Cambraan explosion was multi-cellularity--everything else, all the weird shapes, all the funky looking animals, were just variations on the theme.
Hooya2 3 years ago
lol. resperatory systems, skeletal structures, exoskeletons, limbs, organs, eyes, brains, nervous systems, digestive systems, ect,ect,ect, ect,ect, ect, ect,........ "just variations on the theme"?
You're way too easy Hooya!
mejc2 3 years ago
"resperatory systems, skeletal structures, exoskeletons, limbs, organs, eyes, brains, nervous systems, digestive systems, ect..."
You're ignorant and unimaginative.
Respiration is not a complex process. Skeletons are nothing but hard cells. Early Cambrian life didn't have limbs. The eyes were pinholes, none of them had brains to speak of, the nervous system is just a network of conductive cells, and the digestive systems were nothing but tubes with acid in them.
You're way too easy mejc.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Hooya you need to do a little more reading. Skeletal stuctures require so much more than"Skeletons are nothing but hard cells."
Now you are just saying stuff, I mean... get real. tendons, muscles, nerves, cartlidge,joints that work, lubrication, spinal cords. Hard cells? sheesh I mean who are you listening to. dude you need new professors or something. maybe change your major. when you get older you might understand more.
You're too easy Hooya. but you are learning from me which is good.
mejc2 3 years ago
Lol you know that's bullshit mejc, come on. Skeletons are nothing more than hard cells; tendons and muscles are virtually the same thing, cells which contract (or "tense") under electric shocks. Nerves are nothing but conduits. Joints are nothing but pockets of bone that fit together, lubricant nothing but a slick chemical between them. If you know anything about early Cambrianites you know they were mostly invertebrates.
You're too ignorant mejc, but you are learning from me which is good.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Nothing is nothing. everything else is something. when you say this or that is nothing but.... the but that you mention is a highly complex system. Joints... must be formed and fit perfectly.. lubricants must be delivered and held in place... ect ect ect....
you're too easy hooya.
mejc2 3 years ago
"Joints... must be formed and fit perfectly.." Not true; a joint with an imperfect fit is still more flexible than a solid chunk of bone. Besides, most Cambrianites had limited mobility with restrictive bone joints.
"lubricants must be delivered and held in place..." We're talking about animals, not cars. In animals, the cells within the joints produce a natural lubricant. And lubricant isn't required for function, it only eases movement.
Come on mejc, do you know anything about anatomy?
Hooya2 3 years ago
actually I do. ok let me rephrase not must but do. also you are correct, joints can funtion with bone against bone but they don't. your claim that the mutations found in the cambrian explosion are minor is well just silly.
however, youth lacks wisdom. when you get older hooya, and you start to get out into the world and realize that we don't really understand anything.
Maybe you won't be such an easy target, but for now.
You're too easy Hooya!
mejc2 3 years ago
"also you are correct, joints can funtion with bone against bone but they don't."
Actually, all of the early Cambrian species had extremely simple bone joints--nothing but cracked bones with muscles to move them. Certainly, none of them had the complex rotating joints found in modern animals, or the multi-piece wrist bones of modern animals.
Hooya2 3 years ago
hooya, do you realize what an immense stroke of coincidence a mutation that created DNA information to cause a skeletal system to form would be.
mejc2 3 years ago
"hooya, do you realize what an immense stroke of coincidence a mutation that created DNA information to cause a skeletal system to form would be."
One mutation? You really don't understand evolution...
A mutation to harden some cells first--perhaps as defense, or simply a way of remaining upright? Mutation allowing spread of the hardened cells through the organism, mutation forming muscles around the bone, allowing for slight flexing, mutation of segmentation allowing for more flex...
Hooya2 3 years ago
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that this is the way it actually happened, just that 1. it probably didn't happen in one mutation and 2. there was no coincidence, every intermediate step had a purpose which was selected for.
Hooya2 3 years ago
ok. This is not an argument but a question.
You seem some what intelligent or I wouldn't even be responding to you.
This is a serious question.
Mathematically speaking, at what point is something so improbable that it's probability is really zero.
That is where I really believe we are with mutations causing the diversity we see.
If you told me there was one spectacularly improbable mutation that caused x...ok, maybe, But millions of them? In only five million years? I don't agree
mejc2 3 years ago
"Mathematically speaking, at what point is something so improbable that it's probability is really zero."
It depends on the number of repetitions. Obviously, if you flip a coin 50 times, the chance of them being all heads is vanishingly small. However, if you flip the coin 10^50 times, the chance of getting 50 heads in a row increases dramatically.
"That is where I really believe we are with mutations causing the diversity we see." Well obviously I disagree =).
Hooya2 3 years ago
"If you told me there was one spectacularly improbable mutation that caused x...ok, maybe, But millions of them? In only five million years? I don't agree"
Why do you say millions? If already shown that a simple skeletal structure could be developed with only a couple hundred* at most, by small, gradual steps.
*assuming that appropriate muscle placement and fracturing, and nerve attachments, take hundreds of tiny changes*
Hooya2 3 years ago
"But millions of them? In only five million years?"
What is the average reproduction time of a fish? One year? So when we're talking about 5 million years, we're talking about 5 million generations of fish. Keep in mind that each generation is itself made of perhaps millions of fish.
Is it really at all surprising that thousands of variations of fish (although all jaw-less and most gill-less) could arise in a virtually uncontested environment in 5 million years?
Hooya2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I mean pre cambrian to cambrian.
No eyes or system for an eye to complex visual systems. No bones to bones. No limbs to limbs. A sexual reprodution to sexual. The array of questions thus coincidences is vast and immense. by what mechanism does the new information arise. selection cannot create things only change them. there are limits to selection. Hence mutations are needed but at what point do we just say, Oh come on there is no evidence for the story we are telling.
mejc2 3 years ago
"No eyes or system for an eye to complex visual systems." Precambrian cells had photosensitivity; Cambrian animals had simple pinhole eyes (as I've already stated) not the fully enclosed orbitals of today.
"No bones to bones." I've already explained 3 times the simplicity of bones.
"A sexual [sic] reprodution to sexual." Splitting genes and duplicating them compared to splitting genes and exchanging them? That is not a big difference.
Hooya2 3 years ago