Just thought it was interesting that luckyhubby was banned by the poster but not before sending an email to him filled with not fact but curses. guess he didn't have anything interesting to say.
@13firedancer I messaged luckyhubby an athoratative video on the subject of human evolution because he clearly had not done research into the subject. This was a BBC Horizon documentary called 'Are we still evolving'. He messaged me back more or less telling me to stick it. I send Fucktards like luckyhubby packing with the abuse they deserve. If you want to debate with the pig headed ignorant shit you are free to do so on HIS channel. I don't entertain fucktards.
fact is that humans are not model as he claims humans are elvolving we are living longer growing taller and some humans have even evolved to not need K9 teeth.
I've seen claims that this has been Dr. but no original footage and I'm trying to look.
@luckyhubbie and you look like a paranoid creationist attempting to prove your beliefs through dissing dawkins. I hope you realize there is a difference between evolving and adapting; evolution takes place over a long period of time but adaptation can take place in much shorter time and as for living longer, thats from modern medicinal technology that we did not have hundreds of years ago it has nothing to do with improved body structure. there is nothing wrong with what dawkins is saying.
I noticed you didn't say anything about K9 teeth disapearing. Didn't happen over night. That's the definition of evolution and Darwin predicts this event in the Decent of Man. So in fact Humans are still evolving so that makes Dr. numb nuts incorrect by saying humans are no longer evolving. Creation and Evolution are two different things. I have no desire to prove one over the other. Evolution can never explain how life began only how it changes. Chemistry vs creation is more appropriate.
@luckyhubbie We can ask why theists keep on calling their god an intelligent creator. If he was intelligent then he would have made it so that humans could drink sea water. but no this is not the case , he makes a planet with over 2/3 sea water when we can only drink fresh. He makes a planet that brings forth f natural disasters and diseases. Nothing intelligent at all. Theists then claim he is loving, forgiving, compassionate, and answers prayers.Obviously the Japanese didn't pray enough.
@DrMontague you assume it would be better to drink sea if we lived in the ocean. But you and I seem to have had enough fresh water as well as every human that survived to procreat. The Japanese are thankful that there is so much sea water since it is able to carry more heat than fresh water without boiling. The nueclear reactors would be worse off if sea water were scarce. Fact is the planet has been working pretty well for the last billion plus years better than anything man has made.
@luckyhubbie again you completely miss the point of adaptation vs evolution! did you skip biology class when you went to high school? because you don't seem to realize the definition of either one even when i explained it in my previous comment! humans are not going to evolve anymore simply because of the fact that we do not need to; we have reached our optimum body structure. however, we may have to adapt to rapid changes in our environment due to the new hazards created by technology.
@phuphroo He refused to do any research i.e. BBC Horizon 'are we still evolving ' so I've blocked the pig headed ignorant shit. I don't entertain such people on my channels. They are free to be pig headed ignorant elsewhere.
@luckyhubbie oh and by the way, I didn't directly talk about the K9 teeth disappearing because you said it yourself that it did not happen over night. Which is funny because you are proving my point by saying so! It indeed did not happen over night, it happened over an extremely long period of time and now we have finally reached that point where the evolution has slowed down because enough time has progressed for us to reach a point where we don't need to evolve anymore.
@phuphroo Your argueing both sides. Humans don't evolve any more but loosing K9 teeth is a product of evolution. Which is it? You pretend to know more than you do. Adaptation is about changing behavior. Evolution is about natural selection to alter DNA and physical atributes. Longer life and Humans growing taller is a physical atribute. You cannot adapt to grow taller or live longer those are not physical atributes.
@luckyhubbie actually adaptation means:any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. you dont seem to realize that adaptation is a form of evolution that occurs over a much shorter period of time. people can indeed adapt to become taller through the course of natural selection, but as for living longer thats because of modern medicine.
its clear that they asked something else, then fixed this later.
OR, dawkins really didnt concentrate, because this was a rather easy question. And im sure that if they ask him now he will be able to answer. Althugh they have to rephrase the question, because it makes no sense the way she asks it.
Dawkins appearing to be "stumped" by this question is now a central part of Creationist folklore when all it shows is the bankruptcy of Creationism as science.
Anybody who has actually read Dawkins, knows that his actually being "stumped" by this question is about as likely as Stephen Hawking being stumped by a question of high-school algebra.
Creationists don't bother to read his work yet criticize it anyway... they watch videos and draw conclusions from a what someone does not say.
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point..
Dawkins was tricked into giving creationalist documentary makers from Australia access to his home. Dawkins doesn't accept interviews with creationalist. And this question made him realise what was going on. His next statement was "can you stop the camera. Now leave my house". Because they had come all the way from Australia, he changed his mind and let the interview continue. But his answer shown here was to a completely different question.
@121jigawatts Yes I can. First, I point you to the you tube video where Dawkins explains publicly he does not debate with creationalists. Then I point you to a "freakin' Dawkins website". Type "the information challenge Dawkins" into google and it is the first website. As you can see, Dawkins has no problem answering the question. But you will have to put your science hat on because it isn't grade 3 material.
@sebbysteiny I could easily point you to Sunday school and have the account of Genesis read to you (probably again) but you'll have to put on you Sunday school hat because it's not grade 3 material. If you've heard the account of Genesis or any Bible book for that matter and didn't believe it, why? Can you rewrite history? Can you tell which way the wind will come from? Can you tell me where it will go? What evidence more do you need?
...I'd like to thank you for starters for not just laying into me and calling me an idiot, close, but that will do. What makes you think that the very things you attack regarding my intellect cannot be reversed and pointed to you? We have so much in common and yet have nothing in common. While we can converse because we've been taught the same language, we share in humanities events as humans, we have a DNA that is remarkably different even though specifically same.
My point is this. The story of evolution changes based upon what corner it is backed into. There is the argument that because there is so many different types of dogs that evolution must be true. Either that or a bulldog gets it on with a shitzu and makes a bullshit. Here Dawkins says that we share a common ancestor waaaay baaaaahhhck when. Really? He was there?! He knows all things? He is omnipotent, omniscient?? The "evidence" doesn't "look" that way to me. This 3rd grader sees that!
....by the way, I'm not the "intellectual" type. I'm perfectly ok with not "knowing" all things. I'd be lying if I told you that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth because I was there. No, I can't prove that to you, that would make me a liar, or at least intellectually dishonest. I don't wish to be that way. For me, this is still all about faith, something materialists simply have a tough time grasping. I wish no offense to you sir.
@121jigawatts Faith is a belief without proof. We have evidence and proof for evolution. Go and research it and report your findings It you don't you are off my channel mate This as is because don't put up with ignorant people. So far you are comeing over as unread and there fore ignorant. You have been warned.
@DrMontague I wish no offense to you either. You mock my intelligence, not the other way around. So block me, what difference would it make? I could go round and round with you and you would continue with fingers in ears saying "nah nah nah! I can't hear you!" But you will wish you listened on that Day, I guarantee it. You may think, "oh, there goes that heretic, trying to scare me into belief". I only wish that it were that easy.
When you gaze upon the hands of Whom you helped pierce....
....the story of evolution changes based upon what corner it is backed into. There is the argument that because there is so many different types of dogs that evolution must be true. Either that or a bulldog gets it on with a shitzu and makes a bullshit. Here Dawkins says that we share a common ancestor waaaay baaaaahhhck when. Really? He was there?! He knows all things? He is omnipotent, omniscient?? The "evidence" doesn't "look" that way to me. This 3rd grader sees that!
@DrMontague of course we have proof, we observe micro evoloution. But macro evolution is where you're wrong, the difference is, micro evolution is survival of the fittist, when bacteria becomes emune to a disinfectent the bacteria that cannot handle it die, but the ones that can survive stay. Micro evolution is already the existence of dna. Macro evolution, is the notion that information is added by itself from a simpler organism, to a much more complex organism.
@markballantineboi So why isn't their evidence accepted by the scientific community? Further the Dover trial where 'Eleven parents of students in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, near the City of York, sued the Dover Area School District over the school board requirement that a statement promoting intelligent design was to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught'The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were defeated
@121jigawatts It's not that I have a tough time grasping faith. I just think faith is a bad trait that is also known as gullibility. It's the sort of trait con artists pick on. "Congrats, you have won a million pounds, just give me your bank account details and password." "How do I know you are telling me the truth". "Erm, have faith. Yes that's it. Faith is wonderful. Blindly following a way of life because somebody or some book told you to is a real virtue. Now give me your accound details."
@121jigawatts Erm, a bott OTT, no? I think the same could be said of any "faith" based teachings, Islam, Christianity, Sungod, the Lock Ness monster etc. They are all hoping to convince you to shut down your mind completely and ignore all blatatly obvious evidence backed truths that show these guy's teachings to be lies, such as the 5 billion year age of the Earth and evolution by natural selection.
@121jigawatts Jigawatts. I am god and I have something very important to tell you. Evolution is true and I am no more real than unicorns and lepricorns. If you don't believe this is really god, then you lack faith my child. Faith is a good virtue and, as god, I want you to have it. I can read your thoughts. If you lack faith even for a minute that I am really god, I will know. And if you question how, if I don't exist like I say, I can really be god talking to you, I say, you need more faith!
@sebbysteiny subby, so you resent God's righteousness and even claim to have greater righteousness. First you say you have faith and then say something totally confusing about it (below). Do you know what God has to say about faith? It doesn't take nearly as much as you say it does.
@121jigawatts I was being ironic. I'm simply pointing out that some figure in authority might make a rediculous claim to manipulate your mind. And when you question him, he can ask you to shut down your mind completely and stop questioning and just accept what he is telling you and you bizaarly agree. Ie, he tells you to have faith and that faith is good and you idioticly agree. Faith is nothing more than a request to shut down your brain. And it is not a good virtue.
@121jigawatts You could point me to Genesis as an apparent reply to me pointing you to Dawkins' writings. But mankind's method for distinguishing fact from fantasy called evidence and reason. There is overwhelming and undeniable evidence that supports every sentence Dawkins said in the link I showed you. While your version taken from Genesis has absolutely no evidence in support of anything it says and an overwhelming amount of evidence against.
@121jigawatts "What evidence do you need?". I need evidence that anything that has ever happened was caused by some divine intervention. But I won't accept arguments like "x has happened. Nobody knows why. Therefore it must be god". I need positive evidence that x was caused by a divine being rather than you simply eliminating other plausable alternatives.
@tomlop Your sarcasm noted, the Bible and many other writings of spiritual nature have such metaphoric language. Literature, especially among theists, was often written in such style and was common practice. YOUR the intellectual, should not you know this? :P Why can you trust the stuff preached from the pulpits of universities and not the Bible?
@tomlop It was edited and it's hilarious. I think it quite fitting considering the kitchen sink that flows out of this man's mouth, following the puddle drool as he creates pondering the question. Heck, spin the edit all day for all I care! I'd get more out of it than listening to Mr. Dawkin's tell me how it all began. Now where did I put my Bible?
@121jigawatts Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and was a fellow of New College, Oxford. Evolutionary theory is now the corner of modern biology. To ban it would impoverish medical science. We would be back in the dark ages. We now have a greater understanding of diseases thanks to Darwin's evolutionary theory.
@DrMontague I'm not denying anything that you say here. What I DO take issue with however is that Dawkins is as pompous as he is intellectual. Should his credentials raise him above reproach in his "citizen's arrest" appeal for the Pope visit to the UK? Who is he to judge? What kind of skeletons are hiding in his closet? Geez, where do I start...
..(cont). The guy blasts Christians as "under-evolved" in his best selling book "The God Delusion". This book did nothing to advance science but is a long rant against Christians in particular, it is intellectually dishonest at best and racist propaganda at worst. What shall I conclude then Dr.? That Dawkins would love to see another holocaust so that his precious elite can survive as the fittest? Me thinks so.
In fairness to Dawkins, let me also point out a flaw in consensus science. When I studied cultural anthropology it was pointed out that we were actually monkeys at one time. With no evidence of morphological change EVER, the evolutionist then quickly changes their tune (particular to biology) and says that they never claim we were once monkeys but simply share a common ancestor. Peer review does not apply to one discipline only, but across the board so there are no contradictions.
Dawkins doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying here, but it needs to be pointed out just the same. Evolution is a framework, albeit a GREAT one. Perhaps the best we've ever seen even. The network of scientists and politicians (even theologians) that buy and sell this stuff is staggering. But frameworks with weak foundations eventually crumble. It is that which is built upon solid foundations that will stand in the end. Jesus Christ is the Solid Rock on which I stand.
". With no evidence of morphological change EVER, the evolutionist then quickly changes their tune (particular to biology) and says that they never claim we were once monkeys but simply share a common ancestor."
i think what your referring to is how humans ARE APES....and we are in the same way that dogs (canis lupus familiaris) ARE wolves (canis lupus)
@types10000 Perhaps, I just don't understand it and never have. Seems like the toughest questions asked by creationists are really never properly addressed, at least not for this one.
Having said that, the Bible proves to be a very powerful and real book to me. I find most meaning to my own existence with an hour of reading there than I ever did in geology, anthropology or biology. I feel like I spent a lot of money on something that I got nothing in return. The gift of salvation is free.
"are really never properly addressed, at least not for this one." - ...but i just did.
"the Bible proves to be a very powerful and real book to me" - even though its been objectively proven to be historically inaccurate.
"I find most meaning to my own existence with an hour of reading...I feel like I spent a lot of money on something that I got nothing in return"- wow... i honestly gotta say i feel sorry for you (really)
Honestly, the Bible has been proven historically inaccurate? By what means? Can you show me examples? Don't give me any psychobabble scientific jargon either. That's a bullshit comment and you know it, unless you deny history of course. The Holocaust didn't really happen either right? The Bible is not a book of science, and God never claims it is so neither will I. But it does say, "in the beginning..." Again, don't feel sorry for me. Really.
"Honestly, the Bible has been proven historically inaccurate? By what means? Can you show me examples?"
by means of it's own claims and yes, having studied religion and society 3+4 with a focus on the historicity of Jesus i can give you examples:
- Herods massacre of the innocents (an attemp to kill Jesus) exists NOWHERE outside of the bible unless you work of the premise the bible is history then there is no evidence it happened.
...furthermore at the time Herod was supposed to have orchestrated the massacre of the innocents (which the gospel of Luke places as when Qurinius was governor of Syria) HEROD WAS ALREADY DEAD.
- another example is the census that supposedly resulted in Jesus being born in Bethlehem, IT NEVER HAPPENED. there was no census at that time that required the Jews to return to their ancestral homes,
... the only Roman census even around that time that required the Jews to register at a particular place was the Census of Quirinius which didnt happen for a good 10 years after the bible places Jesus as being born AND RESULTED IN RIOTS, furthermore it did not require them to return to their ancestral homes BUT SIMPLY THEIR PLACE OF WORK.
the reason portrayed in the bible for Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem DOESNT EXIST IN REALITY.
Richard Dawkins, the Christian community is praying ferverently for you and your minions the salvation of your soul. Clearly something that happened so LOOOOOOOONG ago can only be speculated upon and the ladies question stands so clear, forever ringing the bells of infinity. Evolution is not science. It's a hoax. Those who can't see past this are merely God haters and deniers and are waging war against those who are truly intelligent and are asking the questions.
@rtfrmko They are not winning the debate. Show me one accredited university, college or school. where creationists have successfully banned the teaching of evolutionary theory.Or where creationism is taught in a science lesson? Evolutionary theory is now the cornerstone of modern biology. The state is more powerful then religion. To reject evolutionary theory would be to plunge the USA back to the dark ages. Medical science and others would become impoverished. The state can't allow this.
@DrMontague The only reason that creationism is not taught in any major university is because of the sinful nature of scientists today and the amount of idiots out there who believe in things like evolution just because they read it in a book.
@rtfrmko I've learned that an atheist is like a liberal, they are incoherent and when you present such undoubtful obvious concepts they ignore the sense and don't answer the question. No atheist can explain how information was added to the dna but they will deny that untill they're blue in the face
@brainwashedliberals "I've learned that a fundamentalist is like a retard. They are incoherent and when you present such undoubtful obvious concepts they ignore the sense and don't answer the question. No fundamentalist can explain:"
Dinosaurs. Men and women having an equal number of ribs. Homosexuality in animals. Potential life on the newly discovered planet "Goldilocks." Human chromosome number 2. [Insert biblical contradiction here]. [Insert another biblical contradiction here].
...So to sum up what Dawkins is saying is, way back in the past, you could see fish evolving and could find genome information increase etc - but nowadays we can't?
Question: Is he saying then evolution has stopped today? If so, why?
@DaveKarl Dawkins is saying homo sapiens and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. If we went back down our branch of our evolutionary tree and chimpanzees went back down theirs then we eventually bump our heads together. Our evolutionary ancestor would too have an evolutionary ancestor which it broke off from and so on until we find ourselves as bacteria. He is not saying evolution has stopped.
@voyagersystem This is their version.But in good dishonest creationist style they would not allow comments from atheists on their vid.. They would only allow their own lowlife scum to comment and praise their deceit, a normal practice for creationists.
...is usually snappy on his answers, he wouldn't have gotten up in the interview for any reason after a question. This would validate his article in the link as he said he was contemplating throwing them out, but chose to sit back down and finish the interview.
Piss poor editing too. If you notice between 0:00 and 0:32, look where he is sitting in regards to the rest of the scenery in the background. It seems he is sitting on possibly a dinning chair. Now if you notice at 0:33 He is sitting in the turquoise chair that used to be in the background. This shows that he got up (I could guess from the article, frustration) and did something and didn't sit there to think about it. Doesn't sound like Dawkins behavior to me. I say this shows that since Dawkins
@ExtremeWorship He did answer it, but in the article. Finish reading it. He refused to answer it for the camera crew cause he was deceived into giving creationists an interview. They then took the answer of another question and put it after this question to make it seem like he avoided it. How's that for good christian morals?
I was just watching a show on NOVA, about the evolution of dinosaurs, and birds. They showed how early dinosaurs had feathers, and said nothing today had feathers on their feet like birds/dinosaurs did back then. That shows how much science knows and how smart they are. They must have never heard of a feather footed rooster, plenty of them around today. Evolution is a Joke.
Maybe he was thinking... shit ...how can i explain this to this blinkered thick prick who has no life and needs the faith to explain her existence, so why am i bothering?
Uh guys, there's three examples I can give that answer the creaqtionist's question... Down's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome (also known as XXY syndrome) and XYY syndrome...
Sperm and egg splits aren't correctly performed and as a result when fusion of the rejoined split sperm and egg cells occur, in Down's you end up with three chromosomes in ch. pair 21, and with XXY or XYY you have an extra Y chromosome added on to the XX or XY pair, making 47 pairs instead of 46, adding to the genome.
@kissntellen because the original scum creationists who posted this vid would not allow comments from atheists. They posted it to allow their fellow lying cronies to mock and sneer at the video i.e video they deceitfully edited. Now I have exposed these people for what they are i.e. low life.
You atheists should be ashamed. You guys constantly put down Christians and insult us like we don't know what we are talking about. 99% of creationists are just as smart as atheists. Just stop being so mean! If you want to waste your time and try to disprove Christianity, go ahead. Just stop being so disrespectful to us. You never know, maybe people will look at you guys better.
@TrippyDrummer Christianity is based is based partly on Mithra the Persian god of light who was born in a cave his birth being witnessed by shepherds. Further the council of Nicea AD 324 under instructions of the emperor Constantine omitted equally valid gospels that showed Jesus in a different light e.g. the infancy gospel, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected, Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse.
@TrippyDrummer you asked us to disprove Christianity. Do some research and you will find a complete fabrication of history asregards Christianity. Oh I forgot to mention that Greek mythology also has several virgin births!.
@DrMontague: I'm with you here Monty... If you look closely enough you'd find that God is responsible for more deaths in the Bible than all documented wars put together. Add this to the number of mythological and pagan references embedded within Christianity. Halos = Egyptian sun disks, The brass snake on the pole with the 40 years in the desert = Caduceus; see any pharmacy for an example of the entwined snakes on a pole; Christmas is celebrated around the same time as Saturnalia, etc.
I can answer this. There are many examples of new chromosomes being added to a genome simply by polyploidy. Many good examples are given in "Deer of the World" by Valerius Geist. An extra copy of a gene is replicated and becomes part of the species' genome. It is not initially needed because the original locus is still there. On rare occation, though, a mutation can happen on either the original or new gene and it takes on a new constructive function.
First of all he didnt bother debating with creationist since you guys always twist and contort words until you think you understand it and it fits with your beliefs. Dawkings paused so he would think of a way to answer the question without being misunderstood, he explains this question in the sites shown on the video's information. So all creationist who are thinking "AH HA!! look at him being stumped", understand why? I find it sickening that so many people don't believe in evolution.
@darryllobo1 Don't bother trying to explain evolutionary theory to creationist. If you want to make them squirm then fight fire with fire. Ask them why they worship an evil god. Simply ask creationists why god murdered innocent babies children in his flood. Why their god created a talking serpent to tempt Eve.Why their god (if omniscient) created an angel that he must have known was going to turn against in a power struggle. Sit back and enjoy watching them squirm.
Just bothers me so much that these people reject ACTUAL SCIENCE! I dont feel evolution disproves the possibility of god in any way. It disproves religion maybe but hey dont take the bible too literally. Theres some stuff in the bible telling you how to beat your slave for christ sakes i don't see any one listening to that...hopefully
@darryllobo14 If such a god created evolution then this god has to be a psychologially disturbed creator for creating such a cruel way for life to exist. Theists claim evil exists because god give mankind free will and was tempted by the devil. Who made the devil? Answer: God. If god knows the future then we cannot have free will, it means all our actions must determined by god. Free will has to be an illusion.These are the type of questions that make theists squirm.
@DrMontague If you are a "smart" evolutionist, then how is it that you are unable to see that Dawkins was lying in his statement to (Australian)Skeptic? Do you really believe that when the camera started rolling again, as he acknowledged, that he was answering a different question? Does he ask camera people to stop recording every time he gets asked a question? If he was misrepresented, as he claims, then why doesn't he just post ALL the questions he was asked, and ALL the answers he gave?
@DrMontague well dawkins performed the greatest tactical tradition when losing. RETREAT, yes he fell back and defended himself with something totally off topic. and gave a very broad explenation. thats what all evolutionists do when possed with a question they cant answer and there are a lot of them. do some research and ask some questoins it looks like u are starting to believe everything u r told rather than logically think look at bolth sides fact n flaws about a topic and follow da evidence
@timmarquez50 Dawkins no longer enternains creationists because you lot have shown time after time that you are prepared to blatantly lie and and present straw man arguments in order dupe vulnerable people your deluded belief system. Dawkins was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and was a fellow of New College, Oxford. Now have you got that! OXFORD UNIVERSITY. You're simply the village idiot
The answer is RETROTRANSPOSONS. These are self-replicating segments of DNA that reproduce themselves and insert into another part of the genome in a copy-paste manner. over 47% of our DNA is made up of them. They can affect genes by inserting adjacent to or within a gene sequence.
@allenkl84 He was trying to think of a way to explain it in a way that a layman could understand it and in the context that she was asking. You realize that he has been studying Evolutionary Biology for 5 decades? Not only can he talk technical circles around anyone in the field, but the fact that he can dumb it down and explain it in plain terms that even a small school child can understand also speaks to his intelligence as well. Nice try though, allenkl84.
so they said when you make money as far as they know it just goes into general revenue general accounting as your money used for your purpose sooner or later
do you agree with this
could you change it
they said it would be hard to change it unless you change a whole bunch
of things
do you want to change a whole bunch of things which is like status quo
and the way it is
do you want to break the control of this world and the men and the way it was set upÉ
If you watch the orginal video of this, (search, "from a frog to a prince") you will notice that they have edited a man into the film, as oppsed to the womans voice on this video. Seems sneaky will me. I can accept that it took him some time to answer, but when he did, he did it beautifully. What pisses me off is the fact that it has been tampered with. Any self respecting creationist (i doubt there are many) should accept that the question was answered and move on.
'...the creationist challenge.... is tantamount to the standard challenge to explain how biological complexity can evolve from simpler antecedents, one that I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable).(Dawkins)
@DrMontague I have read Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Ancestors Tale, Unweaving The Rainbow, The Greatest Show On Earth, and watched countless hours of lectures and DVDs. I do not need anymore of Dawkins nonsense.
He did not answer the question, and that question is one he should not have to think about for a second (if there was an answer).
@soundsliketruck The information challenge turns out to be none other than our old friend: How could something as complex as an eye evolve? It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have already bamboozled themselves, and dont realise that it is the same old and thoroughly answered—question' (Darwkins)soundslikefuckin retard , you have never read or researched fuck all about evolutionary theory. FUCK OFF.
In short, mutations are random events occurring in the genome. If a mutation occurs that is beneficial, it will be selected for (remember, selection is NOT random). Since selection is a product of the environment, that mutation stores information about the environment.
For example, in an environment with malaria, having normal hemoglobin is a bad thing, you are susceptible to the disease. But if you have a mutation in hemoglobin, you have an increased resistance. This mutation therefore gives us information about the environment, it contains the pathogen malaria. In the video I show other examples as well.
I thought he answered the question well. The question wasn't really clear, "increase the information in the genome" What the hell does that mean? Evolution isn't a matter of increasing the information in the genome. There are dominant and recessive traits. The genome can mutate to be arranged differently, it's not simply a matter of adding information. There are subtractions, additions, as well as different arrangements to consider.
JJayco, who posted the other (same) clip, is blocking comments and questions. I had asked whether they thought evolution was not true simply because Richard Dawkins paused for 11 seconds of edited propoganda?
WTF he pauses for more than a second and every creationist christian moron jumps on the fact that he stopped to think and use that as their argument to disprove evolution! Holy crap my patience for christian stupidity is rapidly waning...
u have evidence for this of course?sorry look who im talking2.
Dawkins is hardly the biggest name in evolutionary science....he has contributed basically nothing2 it...he is the new high priest of Atheism& uses his science degree to give himself credibility for his religious views.
name one contribution he has made to the field of evolutionary science?
he makes millions from his books that appeal to athiests.
@arsjth 'Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme. In 1982, he made a widely cited contribution to evolutionary biology with the concept, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype, that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms.'
@tomlop Dawkins does not entertain fuckwit creationists because of their proven track record of being blatant liars and deceivers. When he heard the question he new instantly that they were creationists and was deciding if he should throw the lying fuckwits out. he has answered the question in his books The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable.. It 's obvious that these creationist fuckwits hadn't bothered to read up otherwise they would have known his answer!
Really? Wow... But even if he had paused for that long I really don't know what it's supposed to prove other than his thinking carefully on a rather stupid question.
@777ForeverChristian You want Dawkin's answer? You probably don't because people like you are blatant liars,deceitful. and have no interest in truth! '...the creationist challenge with which we began is tantamount to the standard challenge to explain how biological complexity can evolve from simpler antecedents, one that I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable).(Dawkins)
Even smart people need time to think about things. They need time, not only to recall all the necessary information, but ensure that it's completely applicable to the question and that it's phrased correctly and coherently and won't be misinterpreted. People seem to love misquoting Dawkins, as well as quoting him out of context, so he has every reason to think carefully about his answers!
It's so funny that you're actually picked on the speed he answered the question. It's ridiculous.
@darkpersianuk Atheists, humanists, evolutionists do the same thing with the Bible all the time dude. However, those who do misquote Dawkins on my side of the fence need not do so. It retards our cause because ultimately there is NO argument. End of story dude. Jesus wins!
"this is typically what your side does, see creation, hear creation and then babble disproven scientific jargon incoherently at people who dont realize how much God loves them in an effort to confuse. After spewing the lies enough times you yourself actually start believing them too, even though you know that the evidence in SCIENCE is actually pointing to a creator, the Bible never even needed to make such a claim. It stands on it's own. Your historical facts are false.
If I asked a christian a question and they tripped over their words or paused to think or needed time to unravel a stupid question I WOULD HAVE THE COURTESY AND KINDNESS TO EXTEND HIM WHATEVER TIME NEEDED and not then base my counterargument on how long it took him to answer the question.
Atheists will quote The God Delusion to avoid thinking of their own arguments, while mocking Christians for quoting the Bible in the same way. Hypocrite.
@ikegmx Richard Dawkins was not the first person to come up with atheism. You need to study philosophy I recommend you start with Spinoza 163277, Dutch philosopher. He was early materialist who argued that there were no supernatural beings or spirits, no after life, no heaven, no hell etc there is only nature. Nature was god for Spinoza. Einstein also believed in Spinoza's god which quite simply means nature. If Spinoza had of claimed to be an atheist t they would have imprisoned him.
Therefore your claim atheists only use one book The God Delusion demonstrates again how some religious people never bother to do research before they comment. Go and research The Enlightenment and Materialism. In other words study a bit a philosophy. You will then be able to debate out of intellect not ignorance.
The Bible is not a book of arguments - It's just narrative.
If you care to quote from researchers who have proved empirically the information in the Bible to be true, atheists will listen and evaluate objectively.
oh yeah, the information in the bible....that same information that says the we are the centre of the universe, the sun revolves around the earth and that the world is flat? Right, right, of COURSE the information in the bible is true... (s)
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was responding to someone who suggested that atheists quoting 'The God Delusion' is no different to christians quoting The Bible.
@CiTyLiGhTsDoNtShInE ah k, sorry it's just that most atheists/agnostics/skeptics/whatever dont write "bible" with a capital B, usually only christians....
It doesn't take a Ph.D. in genetics to know such processes. They can be found in any book of introductory genetics and cellular biology. Examples are gene duplication (that is esteemed to happen with a 1% probability every million years for each gene), and Polyploidization, a rare and dramatic event in meiosis that brings to a descent which has the double of the chromosomes of its parents. There are others. A biologist like Richard Dawkins couldn't possibly be unaware of such things.
@dannatus '...the creationist challenge with which we began is tantamount to the standard challenge to explain how biological complexity can evolve from simpler antecedents, one that I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable).(Dawkins)
..The information challenge turns out to be none other than our old friend: How could something as complex as an eye evolve? It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have already bamboozled themselves, and dont realise that it is the same old and thoroughly answered—question' (Darwkins)(Dawkins)
doc montague, check out dawkins lecture on quote mining. he really gives a good chunk of time to this particular tactic of misrepresenting the views of people for proffit or prophet... and to any bible loving science haters. here's a challenge. compare your biblical "miracles" (like burning bushes, 2 or 3 times someone was brought back from the dead etc.) to just the scientific "miracles" that will take place today, just this 24 hour period. how many organ transplants, defybs, amputees walk
So far that only says that genetic capacity - not genetic information - can be increased. But Dawkins then goes on to give an example of how repeated gene duplications followed by divergence in duplicates, can increase genetic information. He devotes a long paragraph to discussing an original globin gene that, through duplication of it and some of the resulting duplicates, with divergence amongst the copies following duplication, formed a family of 8 different globin genes.
Dawkins had explained how genetic information could be added to a genome MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE the interview. The interview took place on September 16, 1997, but in Dawkins 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker" he mentioned a few different ways that information could be added to a genome.
-----
"The main point was that the total genetic capacity of a species may increase due to gene duplications."
(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Co., 1986, p175)
This is called, thinking before answering. Something Creationists are not familiar with.
chodaboy51500 5 months ago
Just thought it was interesting that luckyhubby was banned by the poster but not before sending an email to him filled with not fact but curses. guess he didn't have anything interesting to say.
13firedancer 11 months ago
@13firedancer I messaged luckyhubby an athoratative video on the subject of human evolution because he clearly had not done research into the subject. This was a BBC Horizon documentary called 'Are we still evolving'. He messaged me back more or less telling me to stick it. I send Fucktards like luckyhubby packing with the abuse they deserve. If you want to debate with the pig headed ignorant shit you are free to do so on HIS channel. I don't entertain fucktards.
DrMontague 11 months ago
fact is that humans are not model as he claims humans are elvolving we are living longer growing taller and some humans have even evolved to not need K9 teeth.
I've seen claims that this has been Dr. but no original footage and I'm trying to look.
Looks like a great big FAIL to me.
luckyhubbie 11 months ago
@luckyhubbie and you look like a paranoid creationist attempting to prove your beliefs through dissing dawkins. I hope you realize there is a difference between evolving and adapting; evolution takes place over a long period of time but adaptation can take place in much shorter time and as for living longer, thats from modern medicinal technology that we did not have hundreds of years ago it has nothing to do with improved body structure. there is nothing wrong with what dawkins is saying.
phuphroo 11 months ago
I noticed you didn't say anything about K9 teeth disapearing. Didn't happen over night. That's the definition of evolution and Darwin predicts this event in the Decent of Man. So in fact Humans are still evolving so that makes Dr. numb nuts incorrect by saying humans are no longer evolving. Creation and Evolution are two different things. I have no desire to prove one over the other. Evolution can never explain how life began only how it changes. Chemistry vs creation is more appropriate.
luckyhubbie 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luckyhubbie We can ask why theists keep on calling their god an intelligent creator. If he was intelligent then he would have made it so that humans could drink sea water. but no this is not the case , he makes a planet with over 2/3 sea water when we can only drink fresh. He makes a planet that brings forth f natural disasters and diseases. Nothing intelligent at all. Theists then claim he is loving, forgiving, compassionate, and answers prayers.Obviously the Japanese didn't pray enough.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague you assume it would be better to drink sea if we lived in the ocean. But you and I seem to have had enough fresh water as well as every human that survived to procreat. The Japanese are thankful that there is so much sea water since it is able to carry more heat than fresh water without boiling. The nueclear reactors would be worse off if sea water were scarce. Fact is the planet has been working pretty well for the last billion plus years better than anything man has made.
luckyhubbie 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luckyhubbie They should thank god for the tsunami it just what they needed! Your argument is crass and the imaginary god evil.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@luckyhubbie again you completely miss the point of adaptation vs evolution! did you skip biology class when you went to high school? because you don't seem to realize the definition of either one even when i explained it in my previous comment! humans are not going to evolve anymore simply because of the fact that we do not need to; we have reached our optimum body structure. however, we may have to adapt to rapid changes in our environment due to the new hazards created by technology.
phuphroo 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phuphroo He refused to do any research i.e. BBC Horizon 'are we still evolving ' so I've blocked the pig headed ignorant shit. I don't entertain such people on my channels. They are free to be pig headed ignorant elsewhere.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@luckyhubbie oh and by the way, I didn't directly talk about the K9 teeth disappearing because you said it yourself that it did not happen over night. Which is funny because you are proving my point by saying so! It indeed did not happen over night, it happened over an extremely long period of time and now we have finally reached that point where the evolution has slowed down because enough time has progressed for us to reach a point where we don't need to evolve anymore.
phuphroo 11 months ago
@phuphroo Your argueing both sides. Humans don't evolve any more but loosing K9 teeth is a product of evolution. Which is it? You pretend to know more than you do. Adaptation is about changing behavior. Evolution is about natural selection to alter DNA and physical atributes. Longer life and Humans growing taller is a physical atribute. You cannot adapt to grow taller or live longer those are not physical atributes.
Creation vs evolution is apples and oranges.
luckyhubbie 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luckyhubbie Search YouTube BBC Horizon 'Are we still evolving' This will give an insight
DrMontague 11 months ago
@luckyhubbie actually adaptation means:any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. you dont seem to realize that adaptation is a form of evolution that occurs over a much shorter period of time. people can indeed adapt to become taller through the course of natural selection, but as for living longer thats because of modern medicine.
phuphroo 11 months ago
its clear that they asked something else, then fixed this later.
OR, dawkins really didnt concentrate, because this was a rather easy question. And im sure that if they ask him now he will be able to answer. Althugh they have to rephrase the question, because it makes no sense the way she asks it.
gulbirk 1 year ago
Shows how pathetic creationists are. Asking a simple question and then making a hoax video.
starsoffyre 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Answers
cbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov (/) pubmed (/) 10978
ncbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov (/) pubmed (/) 11084
He answered this over 10 years prior to interview in The Blind Watchmaker (1986 pg 172-175. To suggest he couldn't answer is dishonest!
He paused due to the realization that he was duped into an interview with creationists!
Also, here's a vid of him talking about it
watch?v=cyYjPbNeq
Skip to about 3:30...
noanswersingenesis (dot) (or g) (dot) au (/) dawkinschallenge (dot) (htm)
seansalvador1 1 year ago 8
Dawkins appearing to be "stumped" by this question is now a central part of Creationist folklore when all it shows is the bankruptcy of Creationism as science.
Anybody who has actually read Dawkins, knows that his actually being "stumped" by this question is about as likely as Stephen Hawking being stumped by a question of high-school algebra.
Creationists don't bother to read his work yet criticize it anyway... they watch videos and draw conclusions from a what someone does not say.
seansalvador1 1 year ago
he has clear ideas. °ç°
cavol80 1 year ago
By Richard Dawkins
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.
jasonwparker 1 year ago
By Richard Dawkins
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point..
jasonwparker 1 year ago
lol this video was cut .
selearemus 1 year ago
now go debate Nephilimfree since you're so smart. Prove your evidence there "sporty". ;)
121jigawatts 1 year ago
Dawkins was tricked into giving creationalist documentary makers from Australia access to his home. Dawkins doesn't accept interviews with creationalist. And this question made him realise what was going on. His next statement was "can you stop the camera. Now leave my house". Because they had come all the way from Australia, he changed his mind and let the interview continue. But his answer shown here was to a completely different question.
sebbysteiny 1 year ago
@sebbysteiny Can you prove this BS? And don't send me to the freakin' Dawkins website either, that isn't fair territory.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts Yes I can. First, I point you to the you tube video where Dawkins explains publicly he does not debate with creationalists. Then I point you to a "freakin' Dawkins website". Type "the information challenge Dawkins" into google and it is the first website. As you can see, Dawkins has no problem answering the question. But you will have to put your science hat on because it isn't grade 3 material.
sebbysteiny 1 year ago
@sebbysteiny I could easily point you to Sunday school and have the account of Genesis read to you (probably again) but you'll have to put on you Sunday school hat because it's not grade 3 material. If you've heard the account of Genesis or any Bible book for that matter and didn't believe it, why? Can you rewrite history? Can you tell which way the wind will come from? Can you tell me where it will go? What evidence more do you need?
121jigawatts 1 year ago
...I'd like to thank you for starters for not just laying into me and calling me an idiot, close, but that will do. What makes you think that the very things you attack regarding my intellect cannot be reversed and pointed to you? We have so much in common and yet have nothing in common. While we can converse because we've been taught the same language, we share in humanities events as humans, we have a DNA that is remarkably different even though specifically same.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
My point is this. The story of evolution changes based upon what corner it is backed into. There is the argument that because there is so many different types of dogs that evolution must be true. Either that or a bulldog gets it on with a shitzu and makes a bullshit. Here Dawkins says that we share a common ancestor waaaay baaaaahhhck when. Really? He was there?! He knows all things? He is omnipotent, omniscient?? The "evidence" doesn't "look" that way to me. This 3rd grader sees that!
121jigawatts 1 year ago
....by the way, I'm not the "intellectual" type. I'm perfectly ok with not "knowing" all things. I'd be lying if I told you that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth because I was there. No, I can't prove that to you, that would make me a liar, or at least intellectually dishonest. I don't wish to be that way. For me, this is still all about faith, something materialists simply have a tough time grasping. I wish no offense to you sir.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts Faith is a belief without proof. We have evidence and proof for evolution. Go and research it and report your findings It you don't you are off my channel mate This as is because don't put up with ignorant people. So far you are comeing over as unread and there fore ignorant. You have been warned.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague I wish no offense to you either. You mock my intelligence, not the other way around. So block me, what difference would it make? I could go round and round with you and you would continue with fingers in ears saying "nah nah nah! I can't hear you!" But you will wish you listened on that Day, I guarantee it. You may think, "oh, there goes that heretic, trying to scare me into belief". I only wish that it were that easy.
When you gaze upon the hands of Whom you helped pierce....
121jigawatts 1 year ago
....the story of evolution changes based upon what corner it is backed into. There is the argument that because there is so many different types of dogs that evolution must be true. Either that or a bulldog gets it on with a shitzu and makes a bullshit. Here Dawkins says that we share a common ancestor waaaay baaaaahhhck when. Really? He was there?! He knows all things? He is omnipotent, omniscient?? The "evidence" doesn't "look" that way to me. This 3rd grader sees that!
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@DrMontague of course we have proof, we observe micro evoloution. But macro evolution is where you're wrong, the difference is, micro evolution is survival of the fittist, when bacteria becomes emune to a disinfectent the bacteria that cannot handle it die, but the ones that can survive stay. Micro evolution is already the existence of dna. Macro evolution, is the notion that information is added by itself from a simpler organism, to a much more complex organism.
brainwashedliberals 1 year ago
@DrMontague A creationist evidence is the same evidence as an evolutioist,
markballantineboi 1 year ago
@markballantineboi So why isn't their evidence accepted by the scientific community? Further the Dover trial where 'Eleven parents of students in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, near the City of York, sued the Dover Area School District over the school board requirement that a statement promoting intelligent design was to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught'The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were defeated
DrMontague 1 year ago
@markballantineboi I've just read some of your comments on other channles. Conclusion you are as thick as fucking pig shit.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@121jigawatts It's not that I have a tough time grasping faith. I just think faith is a bad trait that is also known as gullibility. It's the sort of trait con artists pick on. "Congrats, you have won a million pounds, just give me your bank account details and password." "How do I know you are telling me the truth". "Erm, have faith. Yes that's it. Faith is wonderful. Blindly following a way of life because somebody or some book told you to is a real virtue. Now give me your accound details."
sebbysteiny 1 year ago
@sebbysteiny Ever wondered why Islam is taking over the religious sector of your country? I know why.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts Erm, a bott OTT, no? I think the same could be said of any "faith" based teachings, Islam, Christianity, Sungod, the Lock Ness monster etc. They are all hoping to convince you to shut down your mind completely and ignore all blatatly obvious evidence backed truths that show these guy's teachings to be lies, such as the 5 billion year age of the Earth and evolution by natural selection.
sebbysteiny 1 year ago
@121jigawatts Jigawatts. I am god and I have something very important to tell you. Evolution is true and I am no more real than unicorns and lepricorns. If you don't believe this is really god, then you lack faith my child. Faith is a good virtue and, as god, I want you to have it. I can read your thoughts. If you lack faith even for a minute that I am really god, I will know. And if you question how, if I don't exist like I say, I can really be god talking to you, I say, you need more faith!
sebbysteiny 1 year ago
@sebbysteiny subby, so you resent God's righteousness and even claim to have greater righteousness. First you say you have faith and then say something totally confusing about it (below). Do you know what God has to say about faith? It doesn't take nearly as much as you say it does.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts I was being ironic. I'm simply pointing out that some figure in authority might make a rediculous claim to manipulate your mind. And when you question him, he can ask you to shut down your mind completely and stop questioning and just accept what he is telling you and you bizaarly agree. Ie, he tells you to have faith and that faith is good and you idioticly agree. Faith is nothing more than a request to shut down your brain. And it is not a good virtue.
sebbysteiny 1 year ago
@121jigawatts You could point me to Genesis as an apparent reply to me pointing you to Dawkins' writings. But mankind's method for distinguishing fact from fantasy called evidence and reason. There is overwhelming and undeniable evidence that supports every sentence Dawkins said in the link I showed you. While your version taken from Genesis has absolutely no evidence in support of anything it says and an overwhelming amount of evidence against.
sebbysteiny 1 year ago
@121jigawatts "What evidence do you need?". I need evidence that anything that has ever happened was caused by some divine intervention. But I won't accept arguments like "x has happened. Nobody knows why. Therefore it must be god". I need positive evidence that x was caused by a divine being rather than you simply eliminating other plausable alternatives.
sebbysteiny 1 year ago
@tomlop Your sarcasm noted, the Bible and many other writings of spiritual nature have such metaphoric language. Literature, especially among theists, was often written in such style and was common practice. YOUR the intellectual, should not you know this? :P Why can you trust the stuff preached from the pulpits of universities and not the Bible?
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@tomlop It was edited and it's hilarious. I think it quite fitting considering the kitchen sink that flows out of this man's mouth, following the puddle drool as he creates pondering the question. Heck, spin the edit all day for all I care! I'd get more out of it than listening to Mr. Dawkin's tell me how it all began. Now where did I put my Bible?
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and was a fellow of New College, Oxford. Evolutionary theory is now the corner of modern biology. To ban it would impoverish medical science. We would be back in the dark ages. We now have a greater understanding of diseases thanks to Darwin's evolutionary theory.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague I'm not denying anything that you say here. What I DO take issue with however is that Dawkins is as pompous as he is intellectual. Should his credentials raise him above reproach in his "citizen's arrest" appeal for the Pope visit to the UK? Who is he to judge? What kind of skeletons are hiding in his closet? Geez, where do I start...
121jigawatts 1 year ago
..(cont). The guy blasts Christians as "under-evolved" in his best selling book "The God Delusion". This book did nothing to advance science but is a long rant against Christians in particular, it is intellectually dishonest at best and racist propaganda at worst. What shall I conclude then Dr.? That Dawkins would love to see another holocaust so that his precious elite can survive as the fittest? Me thinks so.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
In fairness to Dawkins, let me also point out a flaw in consensus science. When I studied cultural anthropology it was pointed out that we were actually monkeys at one time. With no evidence of morphological change EVER, the evolutionist then quickly changes their tune (particular to biology) and says that they never claim we were once monkeys but simply share a common ancestor. Peer review does not apply to one discipline only, but across the board so there are no contradictions.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
Dawkins doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying here, but it needs to be pointed out just the same. Evolution is a framework, albeit a GREAT one. Perhaps the best we've ever seen even. The network of scientists and politicians (even theologians) that buy and sell this stuff is staggering. But frameworks with weak foundations eventually crumble. It is that which is built upon solid foundations that will stand in the end. Jesus Christ is the Solid Rock on which I stand.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts
". With no evidence of morphological change EVER, the evolutionist then quickly changes their tune (particular to biology) and says that they never claim we were once monkeys but simply share a common ancestor."
i think what your referring to is how humans ARE APES....and we are in the same way that dogs (canis lupus familiaris) ARE wolves (canis lupus)
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 Perhaps, I just don't understand it and never have. Seems like the toughest questions asked by creationists are really never properly addressed, at least not for this one.
Having said that, the Bible proves to be a very powerful and real book to me. I find most meaning to my own existence with an hour of reading there than I ever did in geology, anthropology or biology. I feel like I spent a lot of money on something that I got nothing in return. The gift of salvation is free.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts
"are really never properly addressed, at least not for this one." - ...but i just did.
"the Bible proves to be a very powerful and real book to me" - even though its been objectively proven to be historically inaccurate.
"I find most meaning to my own existence with an hour of reading...I feel like I spent a lot of money on something that I got nothing in return"- wow... i honestly gotta say i feel sorry for you (really)
types10000 1 year ago
Honestly, the Bible has been proven historically inaccurate? By what means? Can you show me examples? Don't give me any psychobabble scientific jargon either. That's a bullshit comment and you know it, unless you deny history of course. The Holocaust didn't really happen either right? The Bible is not a book of science, and God never claims it is so neither will I. But it does say, "in the beginning..." Again, don't feel sorry for me. Really.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts
1).
"Honestly, the Bible has been proven historically inaccurate? By what means? Can you show me examples?"
by means of it's own claims and yes, having studied religion and society 3+4 with a focus on the historicity of Jesus i can give you examples:
- Herods massacre of the innocents (an attemp to kill Jesus) exists NOWHERE outside of the bible unless you work of the premise the bible is history then there is no evidence it happened.
types10000 1 year ago
@121jigawatts
2).
...furthermore at the time Herod was supposed to have orchestrated the massacre of the innocents (which the gospel of Luke places as when Qurinius was governor of Syria) HEROD WAS ALREADY DEAD.
- another example is the census that supposedly resulted in Jesus being born in Bethlehem, IT NEVER HAPPENED. there was no census at that time that required the Jews to return to their ancestral homes,
types10000 1 year ago
@121jigawatts
3).
... the only Roman census even around that time that required the Jews to register at a particular place was the Census of Quirinius which didnt happen for a good 10 years after the bible places Jesus as being born AND RESULTED IN RIOTS, furthermore it did not require them to return to their ancestral homes BUT SIMPLY THEIR PLACE OF WORK.
the reason portrayed in the bible for Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem DOESNT EXIST IN REALITY.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000 "are really never properly addressed, at least not for this one." - ...but i just did.
You proved what? I remain unconverted. Dawkins needs some Visene and to buy a vowel dude, nuff said.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts
"You proved what? I remain unconverted"
- that's ok the crazies can never be de-stupidised, but by debunking the claims of the crazies the fence-sitters are informed
types10000 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins, the Christian community is praying ferverently for you and your minions the salvation of your soul. Clearly something that happened so LOOOOOOOONG ago can only be speculated upon and the ladies question stands so clear, forever ringing the bells of infinity. Evolution is not science. It's a hoax. Those who can't see past this are merely God haters and deniers and are waging war against those who are truly intelligent and are asking the questions.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
THE GLORIOUS AND RIGHTEOUS TRUTH OF GOD IS FINALLY BEING REVEALED! CREATIONISTS ARE WINNING THE DEBATE AGAINST EVOLUTIONS! HUZZAH!
rtfrmko 1 year ago
@rtfrmko They are not winning the debate. Show me one accredited university, college or school. where creationists have successfully banned the teaching of evolutionary theory.Or where creationism is taught in a science lesson? Evolutionary theory is now the cornerstone of modern biology. The state is more powerful then religion. To reject evolutionary theory would be to plunge the USA back to the dark ages. Medical science and others would become impoverished. The state can't allow this.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague The only reason that creationism is not taught in any major university is because of the sinful nature of scientists today and the amount of idiots out there who believe in things like evolution just because they read it in a book.
rtfrmko 1 year ago
@rtfrmko
lol im calling POES LAW.
types10000 1 year ago
@rtfrmko I've learned that an atheist is like a liberal, they are incoherent and when you present such undoubtful obvious concepts they ignore the sense and don't answer the question. No atheist can explain how information was added to the dna but they will deny that untill they're blue in the face
brainwashedliberals 1 year ago
@brainwashedliberals "I've learned that a fundamentalist is like a retard. They are incoherent and when you present such undoubtful obvious concepts they ignore the sense and don't answer the question. No fundamentalist can explain:"
Dinosaurs. Men and women having an equal number of ribs. Homosexuality in animals. Potential life on the newly discovered planet "Goldilocks." Human chromosome number 2. [Insert biblical contradiction here]. [Insert another biblical contradiction here].
Artelus1 1 year ago
...So to sum up what Dawkins is saying is, way back in the past, you could see fish evolving and could find genome information increase etc - but nowadays we can't?
Question: Is he saying then evolution has stopped today? If so, why?
DaveKarl 1 year ago
@DaveKarl Dawkins is saying homo sapiens and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. If we went back down our branch of our evolutionary tree and chimpanzees went back down theirs then we eventually bump our heads together. Our evolutionary ancestor would too have an evolutionary ancestor which it broke off from and so on until we find ourselves as bacteria. He is not saying evolution has stopped.
DrMontague 1 year ago
The version I viewed on the Christian site is exactly the same as your version.
voyagersystem 1 year ago
@voyagersystem This is their version.But in good dishonest creationist style they would not allow comments from atheists on their vid.. They would only allow their own lowlife scum to comment and praise their deceit, a normal practice for creationists.
DrMontague 1 year ago
This is exactly the same version that I just viewed on the Christian sites! Huh?!
voyagersystem 1 year ago
@voyagersystem Christians love to deceive gullible people!
DrMontague 1 year ago
...is usually snappy on his answers, he wouldn't have gotten up in the interview for any reason after a question. This would validate his article in the link as he said he was contemplating throwing them out, but chose to sit back down and finish the interview.
proofoverspirits 1 year ago
Piss poor editing too. If you notice between 0:00 and 0:32, look where he is sitting in regards to the rest of the scenery in the background. It seems he is sitting on possibly a dinning chair. Now if you notice at 0:33 He is sitting in the turquoise chair that used to be in the background. This shows that he got up (I could guess from the article, frustration) and did something and didn't sit there to think about it. Doesn't sound like Dawkins behavior to me. I say this shows that since Dawkins
proofoverspirits 1 year ago
See skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins where dawkins admits he didn't answer the question.
ExtremeWorship 1 year ago
@ExtremeWorship He did answer it, but in the article. Finish reading it. He refused to answer it for the camera crew cause he was deceived into giving creationists an interview. They then took the answer of another question and put it after this question to make it seem like he avoided it. How's that for good christian morals?
proofoverspirits 1 year ago
Comment removed
EarthEndDays 1 year ago
I was just watching a show on NOVA, about the evolution of dinosaurs, and birds. They showed how early dinosaurs had feathers, and said nothing today had feathers on their feet like birds/dinosaurs did back then. That shows how much science knows and how smart they are. They must have never heard of a feather footed rooster, plenty of them around today. Evolution is a Joke.
EarthEndDays 1 year ago
Maybe he was thinking... shit ...how can i explain this to this blinkered thick prick who has no life and needs the faith to explain her existence, so why am i bothering?
mickscrill 1 year ago
Uh guys, there's three examples I can give that answer the creaqtionist's question... Down's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome (also known as XXY syndrome) and XYY syndrome...
Sperm and egg splits aren't correctly performed and as a result when fusion of the rejoined split sperm and egg cells occur, in Down's you end up with three chromosomes in ch. pair 21, and with XXY or XYY you have an extra Y chromosome added on to the XX or XY pair, making 47 pairs instead of 46, adding to the genome.
MrEliseod 1 year ago
His face at the end was like "bitch please".
skepticaltuber 1 year ago
you cant prove eveloution!you cant disprove god cos hes real!
vaughan4082 1 year ago
@vaughan4082 you are a creationist fucktard. No point in trying to educate the likes of you. Fuck off and die.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague i don't get it r u a creationist or a evolutionist? if ur a evolutionist why r u posting this video up.
kissntellen 1 year ago
@kissntellen because the original scum creationists who posted this vid would not allow comments from atheists. They posted it to allow their fellow lying cronies to mock and sneer at the video i.e video they deceitfully edited. Now I have exposed these people for what they are i.e. low life.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague so dawkins answer the question and they didn't show it is that what ur saying.
kissntellen 1 year ago
@kissntellen I have messaged you Dawkin's own reply about this vid.
DrMontague 1 year ago
You atheists should be ashamed. You guys constantly put down Christians and insult us like we don't know what we are talking about. 99% of creationists are just as smart as atheists. Just stop being so mean! If you want to waste your time and try to disprove Christianity, go ahead. Just stop being so disrespectful to us. You never know, maybe people will look at you guys better.
TrippyDrummer 1 year ago
@TrippyDrummer Christianity is based is based partly on Mithra the Persian god of light who was born in a cave his birth being witnessed by shepherds. Further the council of Nicea AD 324 under instructions of the emperor Constantine omitted equally valid gospels that showed Jesus in a different light e.g. the infancy gospel, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected, Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague um what was the point of saying that?
TrippyDrummer 1 year ago
@TrippyDrummer you asked us to disprove Christianity. Do some research and you will find a complete fabrication of history asregards Christianity. Oh I forgot to mention that Greek mythology also has several virgin births!.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague: I'm with you here Monty... If you look closely enough you'd find that God is responsible for more deaths in the Bible than all documented wars put together. Add this to the number of mythological and pagan references embedded within Christianity. Halos = Egyptian sun disks, The brass snake on the pole with the 40 years in the desert = Caduceus; see any pharmacy for an example of the entwined snakes on a pole; Christmas is celebrated around the same time as Saturnalia, etc.
MrEliseod 1 year ago
even if he was stumped how is this a victory at all for creationists, i could answer this question....
dirteyphil 1 year ago
I can answer this. There are many examples of new chromosomes being added to a genome simply by polyploidy. Many good examples are given in "Deer of the World" by Valerius Geist. An extra copy of a gene is replicated and becomes part of the species' genome. It is not initially needed because the original locus is still there. On rare occation, though, a mutation can happen on either the original or new gene and it takes on a new constructive function.
Tapajara 1 year ago
First of all he didnt bother debating with creationist since you guys always twist and contort words until you think you understand it and it fits with your beliefs. Dawkings paused so he would think of a way to answer the question without being misunderstood, he explains this question in the sites shown on the video's information. So all creationist who are thinking "AH HA!! look at him being stumped", understand why? I find it sickening that so many people don't believe in evolution.
darryllobo14 1 year ago 2
@darryllobo1 Don't bother trying to explain evolutionary theory to creationist. If you want to make them squirm then fight fire with fire. Ask them why they worship an evil god. Simply ask creationists why god murdered innocent babies children in his flood. Why their god created a talking serpent to tempt Eve.Why their god (if omniscient) created an angel that he must have known was going to turn against in a power struggle. Sit back and enjoy watching them squirm.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague
Just bothers me so much that these people reject ACTUAL SCIENCE! I dont feel evolution disproves the possibility of god in any way. It disproves religion maybe but hey dont take the bible too literally. Theres some stuff in the bible telling you how to beat your slave for christ sakes i don't see any one listening to that...hopefully
darryllobo14 1 year ago
@darryllobo14 If such a god created evolution then this god has to be a psychologially disturbed creator for creating such a cruel way for life to exist. Theists claim evil exists because god give mankind free will and was tempted by the devil. Who made the devil? Answer: God. If god knows the future then we cannot have free will, it means all our actions must determined by god. Free will has to be an illusion.These are the type of questions that make theists squirm.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague If you are a "smart" evolutionist, then how is it that you are unable to see that Dawkins was lying in his statement to (Australian)Skeptic? Do you really believe that when the camera started rolling again, as he acknowledged, that he was answering a different question? Does he ask camera people to stop recording every time he gets asked a question? If he was misrepresented, as he claims, then why doesn't he just post ALL the questions he was asked, and ALL the answers he gave?
bilgerburg 1 year ago
@bilgerburg let us get one thing straight creationists are fuckwits and bare faced liars. Just as you are. Go and fuck yourself
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague well dawkins performed the greatest tactical tradition when losing. RETREAT, yes he fell back and defended himself with something totally off topic. and gave a very broad explenation. thats what all evolutionists do when possed with a question they cant answer and there are a lot of them. do some research and ask some questoins it looks like u are starting to believe everything u r told rather than logically think look at bolth sides fact n flaws about a topic and follow da evidence
timmarquez50 1 year ago
@timmarquez50 Dawkins no longer enternains creationists because you lot have shown time after time that you are prepared to blatantly lie and and present straw man arguments in order dupe vulnerable people your deluded belief system. Dawkins was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and was a fellow of New College, Oxford. Now have you got that! OXFORD UNIVERSITY. You're simply the village idiot
DrMontague 1 year ago
The answer is RETROTRANSPOSONS. These are self-replicating segments of DNA that reproduce themselves and insert into another part of the genome in a copy-paste manner. over 47% of our DNA is made up of them. They can affect genes by inserting adjacent to or within a gene sequence.
Nice try though Dr. Dawkins.
allenkl84 1 year ago
@allenkl84 He was trying to think of a way to explain it in a way that a layman could understand it and in the context that she was asking. You realize that he has been studying Evolutionary Biology for 5 decades? Not only can he talk technical circles around anyone in the field, but the fact that he can dumb it down and explain it in plain terms that even a small school child can understand also speaks to his intelligence as well. Nice try though, allenkl84.
MidnightMasquerader3 1 year ago
so they said when you make money as far as they know it just goes into general revenue general accounting as your money used for your purpose sooner or later
do you agree with this
could you change it
they said it would be hard to change it unless you change a whole bunch
of things
do you want to change a whole bunch of things which is like status quo
and the way it is
do you want to break the control of this world and the men and the way it was set upÉ
nashadaily10 1 year ago
@nashadaily10 What the fuck are you on about mate?! Keep off the fucking wacky baccy!
DrMontague 1 year ago
If you watch the orginal video of this, (search, "from a frog to a prince") you will notice that they have edited a man into the film, as oppsed to the womans voice on this video. Seems sneaky will me. I can accept that it took him some time to answer, but when he did, he did it beautifully. What pisses me off is the fact that it has been tampered with. Any self respecting creationist (i doubt there are many) should accept that the question was answered and move on.
censurabass 1 year ago
He never answered the question.
liberalzsuck 1 year ago
He never answered the question.
He had an extremely tough time deflecting it.
soundsliketruck 1 year ago
@You want Dawkin's answer?
'...the creationist challenge.... is tantamount to the standard challenge to explain how biological complexity can evolve from simpler antecedents, one that I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable).(Dawkins)
Now go and read them!
DrMontague 1 year ago
@DrMontague I have read Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Ancestors Tale, Unweaving The Rainbow, The Greatest Show On Earth, and watched countless hours of lectures and DVDs. I do not need anymore of Dawkins nonsense.
He did not answer the question, and that question is one he should not have to think about for a second (if there was an answer).
soundsliketruck 1 year ago
@soundsliketruck The information challenge turns out to be none other than our old friend: How could something as complex as an eye evolve? It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have already bamboozled themselves, and dont realise that it is the same old and thoroughly answered—question' (Darwkins)soundslikefuckin retard , you have never read or researched fuck all about evolutionary theory. FUCK OFF.
DrMontague 1 year ago
In short, mutations are random events occurring in the genome. If a mutation occurs that is beneficial, it will be selected for (remember, selection is NOT random). Since selection is a product of the environment, that mutation stores information about the environment.
starlogic99 1 year ago
For example, in an environment with malaria, having normal hemoglobin is a bad thing, you are susceptible to the disease. But if you have a mutation in hemoglobin, you have an increased resistance. This mutation therefore gives us information about the environment, it contains the pathogen malaria. In the video I show other examples as well.
starlogic99 1 year ago
@starlogic99 ahh the old sickle cell anaemia. I love biology!
MisantropicPersonage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I thought he answered the question well. The question wasn't really clear, "increase the information in the genome" What the hell does that mean? Evolution isn't a matter of increasing the information in the genome. There are dominant and recessive traits. The genome can mutate to be arranged differently, it's not simply a matter of adding information. There are subtractions, additions, as well as different arrangements to consider.
InfiniteUniverse88 1 year ago
JJayco, who posted the other (same) clip, is blocking comments and questions. I had asked whether they thought evolution was not true simply because Richard Dawkins paused for 11 seconds of edited propoganda?
Vendetta7062 1 year ago
WTF he pauses for more than a second and every creationist christian moron jumps on the fact that he stopped to think and use that as their argument to disprove evolution! Holy crap my patience for christian stupidity is rapidly waning...
Vendetta7062 1 year ago
Silly creationists, you can't fool us.
Five stars for a good upload.
mercy35687 1 year ago
Wow, obvious edit.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
when he says "please stop there", he stopped the entire interview and asked the creation propagandist to leave.
Read chapter The Information Challenge in "The Devil's Chaplain" by Dawkins.
It's all explained there.
Silly creationist, trying to show someone wrong offers nothing for your petty view. You have to discover evidence, not try to create bullshit.
Get smart.
wojovox 1 year ago
@tomlop
"shows clear signs of editing"
u have evidence for this of course?sorry look who im talking2.
Dawkins is hardly the biggest name in evolutionary science....he has contributed basically nothing2 it...he is the new high priest of Atheism& uses his science degree to give himself credibility for his religious views.
name one contribution he has made to the field of evolutionary science?
he makes millions from his books that appeal to athiests.
he is exactly what he proclaims2 detest.
arsjth 2 years ago
@arsjth 'Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme. In 1982, he made a widely cited contribution to evolutionary biology with the concept, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype, that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms.'
@arsjth You are pig headed ignorant
DrMontague 2 years ago
@arsjth you are a creationist retard! Fuck off.
DrMontague 2 years ago
@tomlop Dawkins does not entertain fuckwit creationists because of their proven track record of being blatant liars and deceivers. When he heard the question he new instantly that they were creationists and was deciding if he should throw the lying fuckwits out. he has answered the question in his books The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable.. It 's obvious that these creationist fuckwits hadn't bothered to read up otherwise they would have known his answer!
DrMontague 2 years ago
Really? Wow... But even if he had paused for that long I really don't know what it's supposed to prove other than his thinking carefully on a rather stupid question.
darkpersianuk 2 years ago 2
He didn't answer the question.
777ForeverChristian 2 years ago
@777ForeverChristian You want Dawkin's answer? You probably don't because people like you are blatant liars,deceitful. and have no interest in truth! '...the creationist challenge with which we began is tantamount to the standard challenge to explain how biological complexity can evolve from simpler antecedents, one that I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable).(Dawkins)
DrMontague 2 years ago
Fucking read them.
DrMontague 2 years ago
If he's really that smart than he would of answered the question easily and quickly.
777ForeverChristian 2 years ago
@777ForeverChristian Fuck off back to your non thinking fuckwit creationist websites where you belong.
DrMontague 2 years ago
Even smart people need time to think about things. They need time, not only to recall all the necessary information, but ensure that it's completely applicable to the question and that it's phrased correctly and coherently and won't be misinterpreted. People seem to love misquoting Dawkins, as well as quoting him out of context, so he has every reason to think carefully about his answers!
It's so funny that you're actually picked on the speed he answered the question. It's ridiculous.
darkpersianuk 2 years ago 8
@darkpersianuk Atheists, humanists, evolutionists do the same thing with the Bible all the time dude. However, those who do misquote Dawkins on my side of the fence need not do so. It retards our cause because ultimately there is NO argument. End of story dude. Jesus wins!
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts
"It retards our cause because ultimately there is NO argument. End of story dude. Jesus wins!"
- that is typically what your side does, see no evidence, hear no evidence and babble bible versus incoherently at people who dont accept them.
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"this is typically what your side does, see creation, hear creation and then babble disproven scientific jargon incoherently at people who dont realize how much God loves them in an effort to confuse. After spewing the lies enough times you yourself actually start believing them too, even though you know that the evidence in SCIENCE is actually pointing to a creator, the Bible never even needed to make such a claim. It stands on it's own. Your historical facts are false.
121jigawatts 1 year ago
@121jigawatts
"this is typically what your side does, see creation, hear creation and then babble disproven scientific jargon..."
haha i find it funny that you're unable to address ANY of the points i've brought up and your only response is essentially 'no you are'
ROFL this is religious stupidity at its best.
religion is yet to have any objective evidence in favor of it, your inability to provide any is just the latest in an overgrowing trend.
enjoy your ignorance.
types10000 1 year ago
If I asked a christian a question and they tripped over their words or paused to think or needed time to unravel a stupid question I WOULD HAVE THE COURTESY AND KINDNESS TO EXTEND HIM WHATEVER TIME NEEDED and not then base my counterargument on how long it took him to answer the question.
Vendetta7062 1 year ago
Atheists will quote The God Delusion to avoid thinking of their own arguments, while mocking Christians for quoting the Bible in the same way. Hypocrite.
ikegmx 1 year ago
@ikegmx Richard Dawkins was not the first person to come up with atheism. You need to study philosophy I recommend you start with Spinoza 163277, Dutch philosopher. He was early materialist who argued that there were no supernatural beings or spirits, no after life, no heaven, no hell etc there is only nature. Nature was god for Spinoza. Einstein also believed in Spinoza's god which quite simply means nature. If Spinoza had of claimed to be an atheist t they would have imprisoned him.
DrMontague 1 year ago 2
Therefore your claim atheists only use one book The God Delusion demonstrates again how some religious people never bother to do research before they comment. Go and research The Enlightenment and Materialism. In other words study a bit a philosophy. You will then be able to debate out of intellect not ignorance.
DrMontague 1 year ago
@ikegmx
The Bible is not a book of arguments - It's just narrative.
If you care to quote from researchers who have proved empirically the information in the Bible to be true, atheists will listen and evaluate objectively.
CiTyLiGhTsDoNtShInE 1 year ago
@CiTyLiGhTsDoNtShInE
oh yeah, the information in the bible....that same information that says the we are the centre of the universe, the sun revolves around the earth and that the world is flat? Right, right, of COURSE the information in the bible is true... (s)
OpinionatedAussie 1 year ago
@OpinionatedAussie
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was responding to someone who suggested that atheists quoting 'The God Delusion' is no different to christians quoting The Bible.
We're on the same team man...
CiTyLiGhTsDoNtShInE 1 year ago
@CiTyLiGhTsDoNtShInE ah k, sorry it's just that most atheists/agnostics/skeptics/whatever dont write "bible" with a capital B, usually only christians....
OpinionatedAussie 1 year ago
he adressed the issue of misunderstanding evolution. The question posed to him showed a misunderstanding of the process
000snow000 2 years ago
It doesn't take a Ph.D. in genetics to know such processes. They can be found in any book of introductory genetics and cellular biology. Examples are gene duplication (that is esteemed to happen with a 1% probability every million years for each gene), and Polyploidization, a rare and dramatic event in meiosis that brings to a descent which has the double of the chromosomes of its parents. There are others. A biologist like Richard Dawkins couldn't possibly be unaware of such things.
dannatus 2 years ago
@dannatus '...the creationist challenge with which we began is tantamount to the standard challenge to explain how biological complexity can evolve from simpler antecedents, one that I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable).(Dawkins)
DrMontague 2 years ago
..The information challenge turns out to be none other than our old friend: How could something as complex as an eye evolve? It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have already bamboozled themselves, and dont realise that it is the same old and thoroughly answered—question' (Darwkins)(Dawkins)
DrMontague 2 years ago
doc montague, check out dawkins lecture on quote mining. he really gives a good chunk of time to this particular tactic of misrepresenting the views of people for proffit or prophet... and to any bible loving science haters. here's a challenge. compare your biblical "miracles" (like burning bushes, 2 or 3 times someone was brought back from the dead etc.) to just the scientific "miracles" that will take place today, just this 24 hour period. how many organ transplants, defybs, amputees walk
hardtomemorize 2 years ago
@hardtomemorize private message me the address
DrMontague 2 years ago
That's was not an answer to her question.
srbosjek83 2 years ago
@srbosjek83 you are a fuckin retard.
DrMontague 2 years ago
ROFL HE GOT TRASHED!
broverover 2 years ago
@broverover No he hasn't you have shown yourself to be a creationist fucktard. You have never had an independent thought in your life.
DrMontague 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So far that only says that genetic capacity - not genetic information - can be increased. But Dawkins then goes on to give an example of how repeated gene duplications followed by divergence in duplicates, can increase genetic information. He devotes a long paragraph to discussing an original globin gene that, through duplication of it and some of the resulting duplicates, with divergence amongst the copies following duplication, formed a family of 8 different globin genes.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Dawkins had explained how genetic information could be added to a genome MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE the interview. The interview took place on September 16, 1997, but in Dawkins 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker" he mentioned a few different ways that information could be added to a genome.
-----
"The main point was that the total genetic capacity of a species may increase due to gene duplications."
(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Co., 1986, p175)
-----
DNAunion 2 years ago
Comment removed
DNAunion 2 years ago
Still didn't answer the question.....
cottoncandicane 2 years ago
@cottoncandicane you are a think cunt
DrMontague 2 years ago