Dawkins: Lecture 2. Design and Designoid Objects (4 of 6)

[hipp6y]

naughty pigeon :]

[Cheuvin]

LOL laurence failed

[Rocker921]

lol "Have you ever used a computer with a mouse" :D not a joke

[Kimbahley]

hahaha! That was hilariously dated. I expected to fast-forward a few minutes to hear him say, "I am now telling the computer exactly what it can do with a lifetime's supply of chocolates."

[FerretBob]

Nice reference :)

[VBranberg]

Oh I laughed out loud when he said that. :D

[uReligious]

sry my ignorance on evolutionary biology, but why doesnt the bigger/smaller dogs resemble a wolf even if its bigger? random mutation within artificial selection?

I want a wolf, like in wow, that i can ride on, lol :P

[DrMontague]

Let talk about noses. Out of a litter of dogs one of them might have a smaller nose than the others. In another litter we might find the same thing. Now if we take the dogs with the small noses and mate them we end up with dogs with smaller noses. After many generations we end up with something that looks far removed from the wild wolf.

[uReligious]

Even though we have the german shappard which is without doubt subjected to artificial selection?

Did we take traits that purposely led away from fx the fur? The chihuahua is a lot "furyer" than the great dane. Did we on purpose choice less fur, or was it a byproduct?

And is it possible by artificial selection (in theory ofcourse) to create a german sheppard (very similar looks) much bigger.. Without byproducts that would result in a completely different look.

[DrMontague]

I'm not going to spend hours of my time being your free online teacher. You have the internet. Go and do some research. MNS Encarter and Wikipedia are good place to begin your research

[uReligious]

Then stop answering? Or maybe you just dont know? theres nothing wrong with that...

[DrMontague]

You have a world of knowledge at your finger tips. So stop being so lazy and start doing your own research. E.g. college courses, buy some books, visit authoritative websites. Then if you still find something un-answered then that is the time to ask others questions. At the moment I am researching cellular biology. I don't expect others to spend hours of their time educating me about cells when there is mountains of info out there. Do your research then ask questions.

[RajahBrooke]

You probably could end up with something resembling a very large wolf if you wanted. I imagine though that after many generations of selective breeding, certain aspects of the animal's physiology would become prominent that you may not have expected - for example, the larger dogs in a litter may also have had slightly broader snouts, or less hair; those differences become more pronounced over time. As a result, I imagine it would take tremendous patience to breed HUGE wolves. cont.

[RajahBrooke]

After all, a dog that is larger than the other dogs in the same litter is likely to have a larger skull, or a heavier bone structure, or some other tiny difference, taking it further away from the original wolf. Obviously, the great dane was selectively bread not only to be large (after all, there are other large dogs like look nothing like it), so its dissimilarity from a wolf does not count for much besides taste. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

[547212436]

isnt this the royal scociety's christmas lectures?

[RajahBrooke]

Yes

[Blackliam]

hahaha the kid doesnt get it

[jojocabaret]

lol 'have you ever used a computer with a mouse?' old school.

[bacon4247]

echo

[oilotnoM]

Is it me or does the tracking go awry when the kids using the "computer with a mouse" ^^

[DrMontague]

This is a problem due to my dvd recorder. When large areas of white remain on the screen for a few seconds the picture breaks. The video itself was fine but when recording it with using the dvd recorder it could not handle the large white

areas.

[oilotnoM]

weird :/

Good video's regardless, thanks for putting them up!

[BuddhaBebop]

but then what about forms of communism which were atheistic? if you are communist and commit atrocities what is the validity of saying that that proves atheism is just as destructive as religion? and again, i wish to point out that i merely wish to learn. im not here setting you up to then scream at you that you're a godless heathen. which you might be but id say it as a joke not as a vitriolic judgement.

[DrMontague]

1. Let me put it another way. In the UK we have seat belt laws i.e. it is a motoring offence not to wear a seat belt. All the major political parties ( Labour. Conservative, and Liberal democrats agreed for the compulary wearing of seat belts should be made law...

[DrMontague]

2. Because all agree doesn't make a labour party MP a conservative and vice versa.

So why was Stalin so ruthless. Well he believed that the major religions were all about keeping the working classes ignorant and accepting poverty as god given. He saw religion as part of the class struggle i.e. the church acted in a way to brain wash the working classes so the that the rich, the aristocracy, and capitalists could be exploit the working classes.

[DrMontague]

3. In other words he saw the church leaders. priests etc as a tool used by the exploiters. The priests pretended to believe in god in order to exploit the working class (we should say peasants in Russia) on behalf the aristocracy /Tzars. Stalin did not exterminate the religious for believing in god but for supporting the aristocracy/Tzars who were exploiting the peasants and the working classes.

[DrMontague]

4. whats this got to do with seat belts. Well you had many Socialists and Communists who opposed Stalin. Simply to argue that sinse Stalin was a communist all other communists must therefore believe in exterminating people who believe in god. It is a STAW MAN argument. There are socialists and communists who believe in god but they hold the view that TRUE communism will rid the world of poverty and that every human will have quality of life.

[DrMontague]

I hope you now see that Stalin didn't simply

kill religious leaders for believing in god as many religious people would like you to believe. Stalin considered them a threat because they were against communism and were colluding with the Aristocracy to overthrow communism. Therefore Stalin believed that they had to be exterminated. Don't forget the Aristocracy and the Church had thousands of communists assassinated, jailed and tortured

[BuddhaBebop]

thank you. so is it safe to say that no leaders or people of such power have killed in the name of atheism? am i asking the same questions over and over? am i annoying? i must sound like a complete child...

[DrMontague]

I know you are young and I'm university educated. As a former teacher I love passing on knowledge. You are now seeing history a new light. You are right nobody has killed in the name of atheism. However many religious people and the media who support capitalism would like you to believe that they have. Remember it's part of their propaganda to delude you.

[BuddhaBebop]

cool, thank you. i never really bought into their argument i just wanted to be sure. following the path of the skeptic after all: give me the evidence an knowledge and then i shall believe; actually, accept may be a better word. also, im a university student who just finished his first semester of the third year.

[Erech01]

i dont see how you could kill in the name of atheism:/ if you dont beleive in god then your an atheist, so what reason do you have to kill?

[DrMontague]

Capitalims, money, exploitation of labour, oil, land, resources.

[Erech01]

but thats not in the name of atheism, thats for greed. In truth you cant really kill for atheism, atheism means yo just dont beleive in god, soohow can you kill because you dont beleive in god:/ i see no logic in that:/

[DrMontague]

What I mean is athists can kill for Capitalims, money, exploitation of labour, oil, land, resources etc. They can kill for these things but not kill for them in the name of atheism.

[Erech01]

yeah, thats what i meant:P

[BuddhaBebop]

i dont mean to suggest that atheists have killed in the name of atheism but could you educate me a bit more on that point? im an atheist myself and when i hear the religious make the point that atheists have killed in the name of atheism it irks me that thay do. do i have a reason to be irked? is it simply they using our argument against them against us but being unfair?

[DrMontague]

Religious people esp. creationists are fond of setting up straw man arguments e.g.

1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted

2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions

[DrMontague]

See Wikiedia and search Straw man for full dtails of straw man arguments.

[BuddhaBebop]

evolution didnt advocate racism as far as i remember, rather it was hijacked by racist fools and twisted into a racist ideology to support their cause. it was much as the nazis and Nietzsche's sister twisted his writings to make it seem he has anti-Semitic. it was religious groups that pushed for racist paradigms even if they didnt accept evolution and pervert it into their tool. does anyone know if some religious people then accepted evolution because it served their racist purpose?

[DrMontague]

It's an old argument. For example you can use nuclear physics to cure cancer or to make bombs. It depends whose hands the technology gets into. If Mohammad had have had nuclear weapons he would have used them against his perceived enemies. The RC Catholic Church supported Hitler. The last Pope apologised for the crimes committed by the RC Church. No atheist kills in the name of atheism but many religious people have killed in the name of their god and their religion.

[DrMontague]

No doubt many atheists (who opposed Hitler) died in action in WWII. Marx was an atheist and he admired Darwin. Let anyone show that Darwin or Marx believed that certain races of humans should be exterminated!

[CurtHowland]

Dogs came about much faster than Dr. Dawkins suggests. In Russia, they tried to domesticate one of the fur bearing foxes or wolves. In only 20 generations, they had completely domesticated them. But in doing so, they also got a white stripe in their fur, making them useless. Only 20 generations.

[only1duk]

Amazing

[MtnSoli2d]

I like when he asked the boy volunteer "have you ever used a computer with a mouse?" Really dates the video. ha!

[kwolf002]

I started cracking up when I heard that :)

[lamnaa]

Actuly its a term from evolution. But they do evolve as expalined in one of CDK007 exellent video.

[DrMontague]

I will have to research him more before I can fully comment but he doesn't appear to really get much support. Is he trying to prove the bible right according to Genesis as Hovind fails to do, or does he reject the bible but attempt to argue instead for ID? I'm still reading at the moment.

[DrMontague]

It's ok I looked him up on wikipedia. Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he claims that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. But wait this is a long way off Adam and Eve.

[lumikitten]

Behe is a dumbass. He's the one who coined the term 'irreducible complexity', and was pwned for it when he testified in court as a rep for creationists. The judge it was a move of "breathtaking inanity", lmao.

[comp7878]

There was a lecture about this,

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

tinyurl com /nb8hf

[DrMontague]

sokoboo in my opinion you appear to be a man who has been torn apart in life. This is why I find it hard to debate with you. If you need to believe in God to get you through your hard times and it gives you comfort I will reluctantly accept it.

[DrMontague]

and please explain who Duane Gish or Dr. Behee are. What are their views? Where can I find out more about them?

[DrMontague]

You state 'Kent Hovind is not a scientist'so why do you regard him as an authority on scientific subjects and believe what he says? Why does no eminent scientist support him?. Not one? sokoboo I'm not trying to embarrass or humiliate but I'm interested why you hold strongly such opinions against all the evidence.

[sokoboo]

Kent Hovind is not a scientist and not sure anyone would call him. I Never said anyone would support him. I was criticizing people for using him as the face for creationists. It is straw man arguament. Why not criticize buy like Duane Gish or Dr. Behee

[M1kk0P01k4]

These are golden, thank you for uploading. These are also making the understanding the evolution so easy that even my dog understands the basics. So if there are these warriorprincesses or whatever trying to pull jesus in, all they are really saying is that they can't think on their own. Cheers!

[sokoboo]

Is it ironic that people who hate god like Mr Dawkins are the staunchest evolutionists? You have to ask the question what came first their theory or their hate. I would venture to say their hate. Why, because although it not perfect Religion has done more for society than anything else. If you disagree let me remind you the idea that blacks are lower level of life than whites was propagated by evolution. It was the religious people who pushed to end slavery, and prevent communism.

[M1kk0P01k4]

The religious people are also the people who started the slavery. "If you disagree let me remind you the idea that blacks are lower level of life than whites was propagated by evolution" Yes, sadly it was said to, but it was also rejected due to evolution, wasn't it? Do you want a reminder of all the goofy s*** that was and is propagated by religion??

[DrMontague]

sokoboo calm down please. You appear to be full of hell and bitterness on this subject . Slavery came long before evolutionary theory e.g. Sparticus. I will private message you on this as there is a word limit. Nobody has mentioned hate. There are many different religions all with different view points. The Roman Catholic Church to some degree hated Jews and supported Hitler!

[sokoboo]

Dr Montaque, I hope you are not a real doctor. The Idea that no one uploaded one of your videos is equal to someone denying you free speach is not anything else but funny.

As far as Kent Hovind goes using him as a whipping post and to represnt the rest of the creation movment is another logical error on your part. He does not even have a degree in science. He is mearly an evangelist that uses contradictions, lies and abusrditites in evolution to communicate his point.

[DrMontague]

Hi sokoboo. I was just wondering can you name me one eminent scientist today who supports Kent Hovind? Just one. And I mean an EMINENT scientist. Not someone with a doctorate from an unaccredited training establishment. If you can't then I must ask why you think this is so?

[DrMontague]

I do not deny creationists freedom of speech. I simply make them work for it. They would deny yours, mine and others freedom of speech. They are free to download these videos and then upload them again. To them this would be doing the devil's own work. No creationist has re-uploaded one of my vids. This suggests that they would ban this type of education. Therefore I do not allow their pathetic comments. I've learnt not to allow them to turn scientific inquiry into one of their circus acts.

[ChrisCummins]

Hehe, while I agree warriorprine1010's opinion is stupid, let's not block him for difference of opinion.

I love the way when he asks the volunteer if he's ever used a computer with a mouse before. Really puts a date on things. Thanks for uploading!

[DrMontague]

I learnt that creationists are simply time wasters. I've heard enough 'Kent Hovind v scientsts interviews' to know that he is ingnorant brainless person. I think that Kent Hovind does not really believes the shit that he preaches. He's a con man whose simply out to make money out of people who are easily duped. Creationists simply want a public platform. They are not getting one at my expense. They would ban teaching evolutionary biology in schools if they could do so.

[ChrisCummins]

haha Kent Hovind what a legend. :D Always makes me laugh. Luckily were I live in secular England, creationism simply isn't a problem (yet). Islam is more of a direct threat.

[DrMontague]

DNA isn't that evidence? warriorprince1010 If you start to slag off every intellectual effort with Kent Hovind's type creationist claptrap I will block u. U will then have to download these vids yourself then upload them, then u can make all the creationist clap trap comments u want. You have been warned!

[warriorprince1010]

Interbreeding has 10% nothing to do with evolution.  Either show evidence of evolution or accept that it is scientificly impossible.

[kankerklootzak]

Thank you so much!

[DrMontague]

there on the way

[redfiver]

i really want the rest of this lecture....do you have the remaining ones??

thanks!

dave

[DrMontague]

there is a bit of interference where large areas of white r shown on this vid. It will only last a few seconds. This happens because my dvd recorder can not fully process these parts. Not enough information to process.This is due to the cheap vhs tapes used plus being recorded at low speed on vhs recorder.

[theinquisitor]

If you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe in dogs.