Richard Dawkins: Lecture 5. The genesis of purpose (3 of 6)

[Sophiestelle]

What do you think about the works of Robert Ornstein on the cognitive issue? (sorry about my english)

[entehrend]

how many kids lot there eyes after watching this

[Pahis1]

Evolutinon doesn't have a plan or a destination.

[Badgerinthenight]

@Pahis1 That's right, it doesn't. Not everything has a purpose. Purpose based thinking about natural occurrence is for children, literally.

[RealityScope]

Chock-full of brains!

[ElSoloMar]

Did you noticed how the animation starting at 8:35 subtlely suggest that not fully evolved humans look like black men?

Boy, we still have a long way to go!

[DrMontague]

There is no such thing as fully evolved humans, as evolution is a continuous process no matter how small the changes. You could argue from your perspective that it was insinuating that chinese and Japanese people aren't human bcause the simulation did not show any resembalance to their physical traits. You might be the type who finds racism and sexism everywhere.Perhaps political correctness gone mad

[Elhardt]

A fully evolved human would be homo sapiens sapiens, or modern man. I think everybody knows that what he means. Whether some other form of human will split off and form another line, we can't be sure. There are countless forms of life that are fully evolved and haven't changed for 200-400 million years. The Darwinian mechanism is false and can't be blindly applied to everything.

[ElSoloMar]

Excellent point! I did not considered that due to my own prejudice. In a way, this could actually be "fine" because it show that a "white" people decent from African. I guess what I meant to say is: why NOT to end with the face of moder black man? But for some reason I still find it a little insulting. Subcontiently? it tells all of those children that white people are the latest "model" in human evolution ... so much for dominant and recessive genes!

[DrMontague]

I don't think those who made that demo vid could see the wood for the trees. They were probably so involved that only an outsider would pick up on human face resemblances. The idea was was to simply show the ballooning of the brain. We could go further and say why didn't they make the end product Chinese. If it had been a Chinese vid about evolutionary theory then it might have ended up a Chinese face at the end. Perhaps we all unwittingly see ourselves as the modern human being!

[ElSoloMar]

Ummm ... very well! OK, I must admit that although I am not the type that SEE racism/sexism everywhere, I am the type who WATCH out for subliminal messages in everything (it makes my life a little bit more? interesting), specially when there are children around. After all, who can blame me? I have been that way since my 13th birthday when I realized that the picture of Jesus hanging at my parents' living room had blue eyes and blond hair ... I think they could have done a more considered job.

[Elhardt]

Well any internet search will show that blacks evolved from ape-like ancestors, so yes, I would fully expect that the animation starts off looking like a black man. Here's one of several sites that shows that:

ww w.jay-matternes.c om/Hominids.html

[DrMontague]

Dawkins argues that on mount improbable some creatures might got stuck on little peaks when climbing mount improbable. i.e. is there are many paths evolution can take and each path looks as inviting as any other. Once a creature sets off along a particular path it cannot turn back because the law of mount in probable is that you must continue up. Evolution has no way of knowing what taking a particular path will lead to.

[DrMontague]

Therefore for a spiders to evolve into a homo sapien would require one spider to go back down mount improbable and then follow the path of our human ancestors. This as Dawkins has stated is impossible. Therefore each creature future evolution is determined by which branch of the tree its ancestor started growing. A creature will only evolve further if an outside stimulious requires it to do so.

[DrMontague]

Therefore many forms of insects have not evolved further because there habitat has not changed significantly. However if land masses split and become Islands and significant changes occur on a particular island over time then those creatures must either evolve or become extinct. This is why we have several types of spiders, flies, cockroaches etc. They all have a common ancestor.

[Elhardt]

Well, I don't care too much about Dawkins' "mount improbable" nonsense. If evolution was really propelled by random DNA mutations (errors), a spider should be able to devolve downwards or evolve into a human. After all, a spider is a lot closer to a human than a single celled life form is, or algae on a rock is, and we're told we came from them by DNA errors. There's just too many problems with the Darwinian mechanism of evolution.

[DrMontague]

You are really a fuckwit creationist. Fuck off back to a some dumb fucking creationist website where you belong. It's as clear as the noon day sun that you have done fuck all research or study and don't intend to, yet you feel as if you are in a position to criticise evoltionary theory.

[vysehrad]

By the way, I really appreciate you posting all these videos.

[vysehrad]

Evolution doesn't go "up" or "down". There *are* unsolved problems in evolutionary theory, but you don't know what they are, since you understand it so poorly. I recommend "Evolution Explained" by Ernst Mayr.''

You cannot point at *any* modern organism and say that humans evolved from them. Every living organism is your cousin.

[DrMontague]

I'm not sure who your comment is aimed that but if it' is me then I well aware Ernst Walter Mayr ideas on evolutionary theory. What I'm trying to get over is that although some life forms can actually evolve to a more complicated form and then to a simpler form this does not mean that all organism can evolve back to single cell prokaryotes. Once natural section starts on a particular path there is no turning back, Spiders could not evolve into a Homo sapiens

[vysehrad]

Oh, I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I was replying to Elhardt. And yes, of course you are right.

[KenshinSephiroth666]

So if we follow TheBSG's logic, he would be a pedophile no matter what he did, since the entire audience are children.

[TheBSG]

Excellent observation.

Actually, my logic might ask that he pick a mixture, as to not show any preference, and thus dissuade any perception of interest in the kids.

[DrMontague]

Hold on. Surely our comments were just a bit of a piss take, not meant to be taken seriously, let's not make a big issue out of it. Please.

[TheBSG]

Obviously, I'm just having a bit of fun.

[TheBSG]

He always picks the girls

[KenshinSephiroth666]

Who wouldn't?

[TheBSG]

Someone who doesn't want to look like a pedophile?

[DrMontague]

Pedophiles nearly always pick boys acccording to the papers!

[DJLorenzen]

"I just figured out the eye thing and it kind of makes me feel sick... I guess I'm susceptable to motoin sickness."

Lol, same here, i never thought about it myself either :)

[DrMontague]

One philosopher (forget his name) argued that here is no such thing as truth. His critics argued that is there is no such thing as truth how do you know that there is no such thing as truth because he's arguing he knows the truth that there is no truth.

[C0SM1CDUD3]

I believe your thinking of Nietzsche and the theory of nihilism. The paradox is as follows, "There is no such thing as truth."

[partilov1]

i thought it was there is no such thing as good and evil

[UbiquitousChe]

For those of you who care, type 'On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense' into google. It's an interesting essay by Nietzche. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it's still a beautiful read.

Also remember that Nietzche never wanted anyone to agree with him. It would be the worst insult you could give him. Be interested by him, yes. But don't be so banal as to *agree* with him. It is that very such agreement which he argued against in the first place.

[flaskhalss]

That is the most hilarious thing I've ever read. That website is just filled with philosophically absurd arguments and claims. Ofcourse it is possible that it's right, just highly unlikely, like 1/1138934320584096856908738590­687506987695, unlikely. But thank you for the laugh!

[kev3d]

Chock full of brains...and rich buttery, nutty goodness.

[andyplace]

This guy is (also) my hero!

[BayerLexan]

I just figured out the eye thing and it kind of makes me feel sick... I guess I'm susceptable to motoin sickness.

[BayerLexan]

I love Visual illusions. I also have huge repsect for people able to do slight of hand magic. Being able to understand how we see, and then playing around with it seems so fun!

[DrMontague]

What cheap comments some of you are making about RD. Experience has taught me you can't argue with ignorance.

[dqd58]

As scientific as a Las Vegas lounge act.

[dqd58]

What is the point? that's not genius it's someone who is so full of himself he has become a fool!

[scorpdan]

What hostility...He is simply giving a lecture to children. Doesn't your fist get tired with all that bible thumping?

[MrFacet]

Full of himself here? I agree his book The Selfish Gene is selfrighteous and in his modern tv shows he is not always very agreeable but in this show? Also his new book The God Delusion he writes much nicer.

[kiddznitch]

Dawkins is my hero

[Hollinka]

I can't move my eyeball when I poke it! Is it a good idea to tell children to poke their eyes on the Christmas Lectures anyway?!? We love you Dawkins anyway x

[MrFacet]

As long as they keep their fingers out of each others eyes I'm sure they will know when to stop...