Richard Dawkins and Dr Yan Wong on genetic ancestry - Bang Goes the Theory - BBC One

[warriorprince1010]

Any similarity in genes is evidence of ""a common designer". and nothing more.

[summerlytriangle]

Can someone explain 3:14 and the distinction they're trying to make? I don't know why I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what he's saying. Thanks :)

[infidelguy]

@summerlytriangle

Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mothers to offspring. So males also carry their mother's MTDNA, however, those males cannot pass it down to their children, only the Y. So a male and female can have the MTDNA lineage tested where only males can have their Y /Father's Father, Father's Y-DNA tested for paternal lineage.

[hamishjim]

All I can think about is Richard Dawkins and messy sex. Yum

[summerlytriangle]

@hamishjim haha nice. 

[PillClinton19]

Man are ppl confused, religion says we're right and not changing, atheism just says we don't know and until evidence shows that's the only view we have, not to mention hello! There are so many religions hinduism,buddhism,islam,judais­m,christianity,confucianism ,daoism, why do ppl think only their group is correct? How blind r ppl, not all could be correct use your brain to think longer than 2 seconds,wen u choose religion it means you think others are incorrect, no1 knows quit trying to prove it

[BuildSC]

I just come.



[matt137pickman]

@UBERxL33T Free in a illusionary sense.

[sulljoh1]

" Ancestor's Tale" and "River Out of Eden" are wonderful books. I learned more real science from them than his God-bashing stuff.

[sbergman27]

02:25 - "The problem with sex is..."

Either this statement is not intended to be an exhaustive list, or Richard is one very lucky guy. I can think of quite a few more entries.

[DemokritosAbdera]

This reminds me of the tale of Lazarus Long Heinlein, that by one point in time he was related as an ancestor of most of the living humans, basically by basically having children during 2000 years.

[grenrut]

Because these beings from space need an explanation of where they fit into the bigger picture of everything -

[ferkelbuch1]

got is dead only fucking us gays  can not get it

[ThatGuyFromThatBit]

For pity's sake. The guys here are discussing the amazing science we can use to trace our ancestry back hundreds of generations, and you all seem to be arguing over a couple of books...

Everything Dawkins says in this video is backed up by scientific evidence. In his book, he lays out his interpretation of Religious scripture, explaining his lack of belief in them. Whether or not you agree with him on that matter is entirely your choice, but this video is proven fact, and should be taken as such

[Tarawrh]

That bowl is really annoying.

[Busticate]

Science debunks. such fun!

[adamuk90]

dawkins is satan

[SquirrelFromGradLife]

not counting infidelity....

[wesmatron]

Odd how many old civilizations were matriarchal. It's like they knew that made more sense. Then us boorish blokes come along and try to rule the roost, making a mess of it all.

[J91Chris]

It has to be balanced. Science does explain the way things work, and philosophers and religious people shouldn't feel threatened by this. But there is no argument claiming science has ALL the answers, it can't prove how the world came to be, and can't explain all modern day struggles, or even the majority of feelings, such as why do humans tend to stay with one "mate", whilst scientifically and evolutionally speaking we should have trended the other way? o.O

[HenryMedhurst]

I think Richard Dawkins is a nice guy, and I am in support of many scientific theories, but if I am a theist then why should my Atheist friends and family be any better than me?

[DorakoftheHillPeople]

@HenryMedhurst Better? Atheism doesn't make any assertions, and certainly doesn't propose that atheists are superior to theists. Atheists don't believe in a god or gods, full stop. Any assertion they might make may be incidental to the position of atheism, but it isn't necessary. Have you actually heard an atheist suggest otherwise, or are you merely inferring based on something someone has said?

[HenryMedhurst]

@DorakoftheHillPeople You're right. Atheism itself does not mean that it's followers are superior to Theists, however comments made by Dawkins and other Atheist believers, such as Theists are "petty" and "small minded" do suggest otherwise. I don't have a problem with Atheists. I really don't, but you cannot deny that many non-believers consider themselves better than Theists, as was prophesized in the Bible, when they're in debates, conversation etc :)

[DorakoftheHillPeople]

@HenryMedhurst I suspect that there probably are atheists who consider themselves superior to theists. But your question asked, "...why should my Atheist [sic] friends and family be any better than me?". That is a entirely different kettle of fish. The latter has been addressed. The former reflects personal perspectives which I can't accurately address, for the same reason I can't answer for theists who profess superiority to other theists and atheists. Like you, I can only surmise.

[HenryMedhurst]

@DorakoftheHillPeople I agree wih you that it's not true either way. Theists aren't better than Atheists and Atheists aren't better than Theists. My point is that Dawkins gets the message across that religion is petty and small minded and pathetic, which implies that Theists are stupid and Atheists are smart. He's a nice guy and a great scientist but his attitude towards religion is not what it should be :D

[joe80dmanizanerd]

@HenryMedhurst Dawkins claims that creationists are stupid, not theists perse. There's a big difference between the two. Creationists simply deny scientific evidence and make up their own "truths". This is not most (european) christians are like.

[HenryMedhurst]

@joe80dmanizanerd I agree that creationism isn't fact. My view on it is that the Creation story is a poetic metaphor that shows how God has time for each thing he ha created and not just for one or two things. If you watch Fixed Point Foundation's debate between Dawkins and John Lennox on "Has Science Buried God", then you'll see how Dawkins slates theism and disrespects Lennox and every Christian there is. He calls Theism "petty", "pathetic" and "small minded". That's calling it stupid :D

[joe80dmanizanerd]

@HenryMedhurst I watched the vid and I disagree with you. John Lennox believes in many metaphysical phenomena and perceives the story of the bible as if its literally true. No respectable scientist should be able to agree with him. It's like believing that a fairytale would be based on facts.

If you were having a discussion with Dawkins and told him that you believe the bible is a fictional story about your beliefs, with a deeper meaning - he would respect it and not slate you.

[joe80dmanizanerd]

@HenryMedhurst if you would look for "Richard Dawkins interviews the bishop of oxford" (I believe it has 4 parts); you could notice that Richard Dawkins actually does show respect for such people as long as they don't make irrational pseudoscientific claims.

[DorakoftheHillPeople]

@HenryMedhurst I think his point is that religion is a narrow view that promotes ignorance as a virtue, and by extension can also be quite dangerous. History, and indeed many of our contemporaries, seem to bear this out. I don't think intelligence is necessarily the determining factor in religiosity, as any intellect could be succeptible to a religiocentric paradigm. Sir Isaac Newton, for example, was religious, and he focussed considerable effort on alchemy rather than science. Such a waste.

[domnal]

@HenryMedhurst Because they do not believe in a large invisible friend for adults !! There is no God and people who believe that there is have a serious problem in the head !!

[HenryMedhurst]

@domnal @guahould First of all calm down. Second, I don't think it fair to call faith blind when you have none yourself. You can't say faith is blind when you yourselves are blind to what faih is. Saying we have problems in the head isn't a statement that is true to history and reality. Without a doubt many of the people that have carried the human race through it's years have been Theists. Those who started universities/ governments for example. If God was 100% disproven we nobody would believe

[domnal]

@HenryMedhurst Simple question - Why do you believe there is a GOD without any proof ? Don't forget the Atheist is not making an assertion so is not required to provide proof - But YOU ARE required to provide proof.

And if you can't then you have to "close shop" because you can't sell something you do not have !!

That proof is more important to you than to anyone else.

[HenryMedhurst]

@domnal I don't believe in a God wihout any proof. I have many different things that have convinced me that God is in existence. The main one is Jesus. His death on the cross is undeniable, and whilst his ressurection is not 'proven', the fact his birth was predicted nearly 3000 years before it happened, convinces me that he is the son of God if that kind of prediction can be made and be that accurate. I also look at the beautiful world around us and do not see it just being a freak accident :)

[leptismagna10]

@HenryMedhurst you call that proof? and what proof do you have that Jesus's birth was the one predicted by the Isiah? How do you know that ANYTHING in the gospel-bible or book of Isiah is true?

You're just another believer without proof. You might as well be saying "My proof is the Quran and all the miracles and stories in it". Well, what proves that the bible or Quran is correct?

And the world around you is evidence of natural processes, not supernatural design.

[HenryMedhurst]

@leptismagna10 Well to begin I'd say I don't believe in the Quran at all. The new testament of the Bible reflects a lot of history that we already know to be true (Jesus' execution and Pilate's leadership etc). The Gospels are a secure foot-hole in history. If the Gospels are then historically accurate then why should we presume that the rest is not? Surely if on part is true then the predictions at the beginning are also true. The world around us is so intricate it is clearly not just natural

[leptismagna10]

@HenryMedhurst Even if some histories are accurate, so what? Sure, some crazy rabbi named Joshua was seen around Jerusalem preaching about how we are in the end times. There were many such people.

That doesn't prove any miracle myths like his "immaculate" conception and resurrection. Because it's written in a book proves nothing.

Christian doctrine was first defined in the ecumenical councils centuries after "christ" supposedly died. It was endorsed by the super-power at the time.

[leptismagna10]

@HenryMedhurst Super natural claims require evidence, a little bit beyond being written in a book that happens to be historically accurate on occasion.

And going to hell just because I don't believe in christ, regardless of my works, well, screw god even if she did exist.

[domnal]

@HenryMedhurst In the words of Richard Dawkins " You are halucinating " !!

Fact : The human brain is capable of halucinating and hypnosis - Hypnosis having a value in nature for pain relief .

[guahould]

@HenryMedhurst Better? I would suggest smarter perhaps ,, because they are able to distinguish the difference between reality and fantasy ... I dont think any Atheist thinks of themselves as "better" people ,, just people that are not walking around in an annoying blind bubble of faith ...

[gerinja]

@HenryMedhurst your atheist friends are not smarter than you. atheists always portray themselves as smart, but in fact they are the ones who lack intelligence. I always see this with atheists, specially here on youtube. I sometimes do NOT argue against their stupid ideas cause most of the time is just a waste. 

[jigoku66]

@gerinja

You should know that pride is a cardinal sin.

[medevil13]

@gerinja Atheist dont portray themselves as smart people,but the problem is that the religious people potray themself as dumb people but believe in ridiculous story in some books.

[known12]

@medevil13 atheism is selling, few are buying, not because the religious are dumb,but because atheism and religious belief are the same thing, just 2 sides of the second coin. the religious say there is a God yet cant know....atheists say there is no God but they cant know. both are taking positions that are undefendable.

science is baffled where the first drop...the starting point came from....so all they can do is talk about what came after.they cant make a definitive statement.

[endauthority]

@known12 atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. it is not the claim that god does not exist

Theres a big difference.

Its similar to two people talking about aliens, one believes that aliens definitely exist, and the other has not seen evidence for it, but if there was evidence, it would treat it fairly.

[known12]

@endauthority ah. thank you I see what your saying.

[grenrut]

@endauthority- if you want proof, not just evidence, of an Alien life then visit 'secretnasaman' channel where your mind will be blown wide open! Where do these being belong in the evolutionary tree?

[endauthority]

@grenrut video, by their nature cannot be proof.

[grenrut]

@endauthority - Seeing is believing!

[endauthority]

@grenrut To some extent thats true, but video is not seeing with substance. Video is far too easily manipulated.

[grenrut]

@endauthority - I would suggest you watch some of secretnasaman's uploads you will be amazed at whats really going on!

[endauthority]

@grenrut why

[HenryMedhurst]

@gerinja I see your point on how Atheists can seem very harsh and sometimes petty in debates and conversation like this, and I used t think the exact same, but I was taught by a good friend of mine that if we hate Atheists then we only push them further away from the knigdom of heaven. There are better ways to show Gods glory rather than being petty. Good on you for standin up for your faith (don't stop) but to be heard you need to be a friend. They deserve to hear the message too :D

[gerinja]

@HenryMedhurst agreed!

Thanks and God bless :)

[TheeVoiceOfReason]

I am a serious supporter of the science's but it's obvious that theology and philosophy will have to one day give way to the progress of science. We MIGHT need philosophy now but that hasn't been so sure since science has fully been developed. Medicine seen what was probably the biggest jump to science from healing pseudoscience. Go Reason!

[DorakoftheHillPeople]

@TheeVoiceOfReason I think philosophy is an important, and perhaps necessary, component of science. Einstein, Bohr, Godel, and many others, were Philosophers of Science, in the sense that they gave considerable thought to thinking processes, prediction, and application. IOW, is this important? What value do we lend inference (ie Occam)? How will this effect us? What do we do with this? And etc. These are primarily philosophical questions. As for theology, that sort of inanity is a nonstarter.

[hannahgal]

wonderful!!

[wubs23]

some people just prove evolution. namely the fact that some mutations are better than others.

[PleaseAddJKProOnPS3]

And hence there is no God!!!

[jayhayes2007]

DAWKINS! <3

[jackman1570]

dawkins is a charlatan quack. A medeival minded monkey... he sounds like he has no education.

[qtheplatypus]

@jackman1570 What does he say that is no supported by the evidence?

[jayhayes2007]

@jackman1570 He's a Fellow of the Royal Society, not to mention a professor. You're in no position to call him uneducated.

[jackman1570]

@jayhayes2007

I said he sounds like he has no education, I didn't call him uneducated... oops. If it still offends you that I insult your master then I might add, he HAS been miseducated... oops.

[jackman1570]

@jayhayes2007

I said he SOUNDS like he has no education, I didn't call him uneducated... oops. If it still offends you that I insult your master then I might add, he HAS been miseducated... oops.

[jayhayes2007]

@jackman1570 You also called him a medieval minded monkey. I'd assume that's a pretty good indication that you think he's uneducated. Do enlighten me on how he's been mis-educated, then.

[marvelcity07]

This is a proof that humans have been interbreeding since the begin of its debut appearance on this earth. In a way, we are still making babies with our brothers and sisters.

[SlicedBeefNWotNot]

I wanna get drunk with the dawkinator and party hard

[isisdron]

Richard, I would have happily bonked your brains out when you came to Houston. Youre my alpha!

[rorrt]

I like Richard Dawkins when hes talking about something that he knows about, evolution, and genetics.

When he even starts to touch philosophy, and philosophical argument, he starts to look like a fool...As he speaks as if what he says is gospel, which it isnt.

[NietzscheanKant]

@rorrt

When does he speak as a philosopher? I thought his atheism is grounded in his scientific (naturalistic) outlook on the world, rather than a philosophical conviction.

[thestranger4812]

@NietzscheanKant

It can be based on both. One can argue for atheism on both scientific and philosophical grounds.

[NietzscheanKant]

@thestranger4812

True, but I've always thought that Dawkins' atheism rises (at the very least 'primarily') from our scientific understanding of the natural world, and natural selection and evolution in particular.

[thestranger4812]

@NietzscheanKant

True that. You can tell he knows a shitload about biology and very little about philosophy.

[Surtak]

@thestranger4812

Well you don't need to know anything about philosophy in modern science. We are way past that point now. Philosophy is no longer applicable to the realm of science.

[thestranger4812]

@Surtak

Bullshit. Science can only explain what the world is like, not help us understand our place in it, nor how we should act. For that we need philosophy.

[Emmbrace]

@thestranger4812 That is true to an extent. We're not completely pure thinking machines. That's what computers are. So yes, there is room for philosophy.

However there can be a fine line for some people between philosophy, superstition and theology, of which the latter two give us nothing particularly helpful.

[Surtak]

@thestranger4812

Understand you place in it? Has nothing to do with anything.

What you seems to be talking about is moral philosophy. I said nothing about that. All I'm saying is that no philosopher has managed to advance science anywhere since the 19th century. Moral philosophy has nothing to do with science. All the "humanistic" philosophy like political philosophy are perfectly viable.

[thestranger4812]

@Surtak

How does that contradict what I said? We need both science and philosophy, that was my whole point. And Dawkins is clearly more schooled in the former than in the latter, so he should leave philosophy to the professionals.

[Surtak]

@thestranger4812

But he doesn't go into philosphy at all. He uses only common sense and sience to make his points.

[hannahgal]

How lucky for us. Long live science - you wouldnt be alive without it. Practically EVERYTHING you se including your computer is due to science so be thankful!

[Exeunt26]

@rorrt I think the opposite - he can talk about the schism between science and religion because he's actually learnt his science and can show how they disprove religious creation myths for instance. Religious leaders on the other hand never accept evidence that contradicts their existing faith. A scientist will always respond if facts *prove* them wrong.

[eljacinto22]

what is that music at the end!!!

[BigHat100]

@eljacinto22 The music is taken from 'Symphony of Bang Goes the Theory' which John Boswell aka Symphony of Science aka MelodySheep composed. Dr Yan gets the chorus! Search for Symphony of Bang on here.

[adam3088]

Dr Yan is usually an irritating little twat, like all other bang goes the theory presenters, he's less annoying here though.

[landbridge]

That anemic little british tool doesn't have a micro-bit of Genghis in his blood. His 50% chinese was not what Dawkins was referring to, it's Central Asia aka people of the steppes. Wishful thinking Harry Potter.

[yuptrue215]

@landbridge Well actually the study was carried out in Asia not particularly Central Asia the male line originating from supposedly Genghis Khan was found literally everywhere even South Asia. In fact to be precise it was found that in Pakistan males of a particular ethnic group carried that Y gene so Chinese thinking of having some Genghis Khan DNA is actually not that wishful. I guess all I am saying is that Genghis Khan really did get around :)

[sylviabombs15]

I wanna get drunk with the dawkinator and party hard.

and laugh at all the silly christians.

LOL silly christians

[agentchuck2]

It's odd that people laugh and smile when they talk about Genghis Khan having so many offspring.

[fourq]

richarddawkinsdotnet

free your mind...

[matt137pickman]

@fourq Free (in a sense) and closed, like Internet Explorer...

[sagnella]

My two favourite scientists in the world. Good one auntie.

[marianosman]

Can I be the first to say: Nerd!

[superstrok99]

@marianosman

if this is what a nerd is then nerds are awesome

[marianosman]

@superstrok99 I'm not knocking him, I'm a biosci major, but that's the first thought that came to my head when I saw the interviewer. haha..

[xPEACHxEATERx]

@superstrok99 I would think a nerd is one of those socially inept, jack-off-to-Manga types... nothing to do with a curious intellect... I can see the little guy sniffing his mum's panties but not Richard. I'm calling nerd on him too! Most definitely not awesome. :P haha

[superstrok99]

@xPEACHxEATERx

what's wrong with manga

[domnal]

@marianosman No - That was first said by someone in America circa 1951 but possibly originally somewhere in Eastern Europe !!

[UnblockedOne2]

dumb

[brennanww]

i don't understand what this was, was it an interview or a conversation haha, still really interesting though