Randolph Nesse Interview (1/5) - Richard Dawkins (alt)

[JohnF30Music]

@tnafguy only medical doc that believes in evolution? HAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[lutherarao]

Free energy can change the world!But the powerfull Oil business won't alow common ppl to know this,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the revolution!

[tibyv8]

I hope natural selection will select evolutionists for the future. Creationists and religious people are too dumb to survive.

[bellyzbad]

@tibyv8 true and it would be kl to have wings

[123decoeli]

Gee, it must be nice to be so smart. Show me a computer that can self-refresh, self heal, live for a hundred or so years, filter out toxins, see, hear, think, percieve the universe, dream, and the list goes on and on and on. No, I don't believe in fairytales for adults - organised religion etc, but I do beleive there is a 'designer'. We are part of that designer. We are part of creation.

[desasterz]

I cant find my blind spot. Im using the plugging in end of a pair of earphones...

[dendryite]

Nesse is NOT a psychologist as is mistakenly flashed across his idiot countenance at the beginning of his diatribe. He's an MD (4 yrs of med school v. 8 yrs for a psychologist). MDs have NO training as scientists, which is why they so easily fall for tripe like evolutionary "psychology."

[binarysolo2]

creationists are a blind spot and we have to "clean up after them"

[mutabrev]

Wow Dawkins! A medical doctor believes in evolution like you, it must be true. Thank you so much, now I don't have to think for myself anymore. Whats more, he's wearing glasses "intelligent" he has a beard "wisdom" and he's white. That's got to count for something right.

[dooberry20]

@mutabrev wow mutabrev! You make a really good point. NOT! how ignorant could you possibly be?

[theinsane102]

It's amazing how two rational minds talk. They know what they are talking about.

[WesCivilz]

Interesting interview, but Dr. Nesse isn't right to say that all the vowels on a qwerty keyboard are a "far way aways from each other." U, I, and O are right next to each other.

[wouwouhahaha]

I am a creationist. For example, women were created to serve male. Women are sexual tools, cooking tools etc...that's why if you have money, power, you can have sex with any women.

[rkyeun]

That would be an argument for evolution, misogynistic as you either are or are pretending to be. Money and power would further the reproduction of a gene and be a desirable quality in a mate.

If God had created women to serve men, you would expect them to do so willingly without threat of violence, and to mate preferentially with only those men who worship the right God. This is not what we observe, and so you are wrong.

[Zeuts85]

I can think of plenty of women who wouldn't have sex with you whether you've got money and power or not. They have something a lot better than the money and power offered by a misogynist--self respect.

[airmen103]

After listening to these to incredibly smart men talk how could anyone buy that creationist bullshit.

[tommyboomboom]

unfortunately I think creationists, all creationists, are not and will never be smart men (or women)

[timestandingstill]

Let me " reiterate " My reply was to the comment : "Nice way your mind adjusts the truth to suit you, isn't it? My reply was:

That would be special design.

Good Answer.

[donnyaldridge]

Man wished I had been designed like John Holmes......

[ananiasacts]

Maybe all of those so called bad designs are punishment for the wickedness of our ancestral species.

[mistajames3213]

Ooh! That's right next to the part about the rib-lady and the talking snake, isn't it!!

[ananiasacts]

You're right. Republicans are the punishment for the sins of the reptiles. That's why they're so similarly minded.

[Atheeizm]

Yeah thats the one .... waaaayyynnnneeee!!!

[carrierexchange]

Nice way your mind adjusts the truth to suit you, isn't it?

[ananiasacts]

Nah, I'm just making fun of the extreme ignorance and stupidity of the religious perspective. Arguing about whether there is enough evidence to believe in evolution is like doubting the validity of addition because we haven't checked that every two numbers have a sum. Only someone too stubborn to be objective could harbor any doubt. And the religious people are only doubtful because their leadership is deliberately trying to confuse and obfuscate the truth with their usual flair for fraud.

[carrierexchange]

You've sure fooled me.

Allot of people think like that.

[ananiasacts]

And for the longest time there wasn't that much harm in it. Today, with nukes, germs, and more technology than we know how to use wisely I'm not so sure we can afford to let so many people remain so dangerously misguided.

[sned10000]

@ananiasacts Many religious people believe in evolution.

[ananiasacts]

@sned10000, then why do they continue to believe in god if they realize it has nothing to do with our existence?

[sned10000]

@ananiasacts What many christians believe, is that god created a world that creates itself. (A much more eloquent Explanation than Creationism, in my opinion) If you havn't already, you should watch Dawkins Vs George coyne. search it on youtube. He explains how one might still believe in a god. Fascinating debate

[ananiasacts]

@sned10000, I did watch it, years ago and favorited it, as well as created a playlist for all of the parts on my channel. George never does explain how he reconciles faith in the few things he still believes in (like the resurrection) after writing off most of the other magic (like miracles) as nonsense. I got the feeling from the way he said it is that he believes it because it's part of his job description. I honestly think he's an atheist, or at least a deist.

[sned10000]

@ananiasacts Oh yeh lol. Can't say i agree with you on that one though. The resurrection is fundamental within the christian belief. Im pretty sure George still believes in the judah christian god. Certainly not an atheist, thats exactly what hes arguing against

[tinyfulldog]

I have a suggestion.. to all of you who are so hardcore on your beliefs on weather we are designed by some invisible space god or if we actually are some kind of being that just came into existance through evolutionary process.... why argue the point? just get a pistle, put it in your mouth and pull the damn trigger.. I promise that you won't feel a thing and you will finally have the answer to that age old question.. what happens when I die?

[WistfulGeek]

Stop spam, read books!

[kandipate123]

WOW!!! Too bad their brain is so messed up!!!! To have their all 'intelligence' and yet be so stupid; it's a shame!!!! Wait!!! Maybe they did come from a rock??? or a primordial soup?!?! Praise God I didn't!!!

[mattyabsley]

Come from a rock, what an impressive over simplification. You might not of come from a rock but it seems your brain behaves like one.

[ilope012]

Wow explain the intricate interdandibility of all body functioning systems by spontaneous mutations and successive realignment. Study the eye. Study the cell, or molecular biology. You sir are a fraud. The Human body is poorly designed? You're not a doctor, you're a quack!

[jorrepor]

I think you missed the point. The word design should not be used when discussing the human body. This is because our body's would make very poor designs because of the huge amount of path-dependency problems it contains. You and this doctor do still agree that the human body is an astonishing complex and beautiful thing.

[factvfiction]

Isn't reality so much more fasinating then illusion...yet somehow the majority of humanity seek fantasy. I guess they fear death or fear being completely accountable for their life. What a waste of a brain let alone the one life you have.

[Ze8us]

Well chaning a propeler engine into a jet engine isn't that much of a leap. A crude jet engine is alot simpler than a piston engine, also

[PeelTower]

Oh puleaaaaaaaaaaaase just shut your ignorant mouth and stick to your gullible sheep. They might be convinced by references to pseudo-science. probability is the basis for genetic analysis. It completely supports Darwin. You are ignorant son. I doubt you have even elementary mathematical knowledge.

[atek1234]

No, I don't study mathematics, perhaps you can explain to me how cumulative change, a key principle to Darwin's theory, is numerically improbable. Yes a spontaneous leap in evolutionary complexity is virtually impossible, that is, extremely highly improbable. However, spontaneous leaps aren't part of the equation. Modern evolutionary biology - based fundamentally on Darwin's work - explains how life has reached its level of complexity, you would be a "foolish idiot" to deny that.

[bubbafet2200]

You mean 2 full days passed with no reply? It must be a Darwinist conspiracy - the kid was too brilliant, had to be snuffed out.

[atek1234]

Probability works for Darwinism unless you're a young-earth douchebag

[dan46and2]

I find it amusing that you've backed up your complete lack of scientific knowledge with an amazingly ignorant and hateful user name. How fitting.

[DonJulioBlanco2002]

Stop! Stop! This video makes too much sense.

[alabam5]

I don't have a blind spot. I think i have evolved!

[matthewblacker]

Great interview, thanks for putting it up.

[DarwinsChihuahua]

Oh dear, oh dear. Not the myth about the QWERTY keyboard and delusion of Dvorak superiority.

[kitsunde]

I was thinking the same, I've yet too see any scientific proof of Dvorak being faster and we don't type slower on QWERTY is supposed too slow you down from, it simply avoids typewriter head collisions.

[ndjarnag]

the "keyboard analogy" was great.

[Mjhavok]

I would agree. A lot of MDs don't understand evolution. Just check the idiotic comments some of them make about it. Luckily there are some good ones. Steven Novella, Ben Goldacre and Randolph Nesse.

[Houseraider]

Good stuff, man.

[GuyTM]

just a thought-what is the real difference between 'human design' and natural selection, apart from the fact that it is speeded up a lot and made more efficient?

[GaleAnders]

I am tempted to say, that the body (like life) is really just an emergent phenomenon.

It is larger than the sum of it's parts, and it just ... works.

[playgrrrr]

im following this with great interest.. thanks a lot

[AtheistChase]

At first i thought he said "Ranid".

Dawkins and Randi would be awesome...

[pdimatteo]

I type on a Dvorak keyboard, and i'm proud of it! Just a couple modifications to one of my old keyboards (tape the dvorak layout on it), type on it for a while and now I can switch between the two with incredible ease.

[richarddawkinsdotnet]

I tried the dvorak keyboard for a couple of days, it was a great brain-twister to relearn typing. I can't say that I'm using it now... but maybe someday. :) - Josh

[GaleAnders]

Thanks for the hint. Gonna try it.

[richarddawkinsdotnet]

If you're using Max OSX, you can change to a dvorak layout in system preferences -> international -> language menu. Select 'dvorak' and then check 'show input menu in menu bar', and you can swap between qwerty and dvorak easily in the top right menu. Then google 'dvorak typing exercises' and you can start practicing. Of course, you can't LOOK at the keys (they'll be wrong), unless you pop them all off and reorganize them! - Josh

[GaleAnders]

Thanks again for the tip. I'm using MS, but I am sure that if it does not support Dvorak, someone has written a keyboard def. I can download.

BTW: I read somewhere that you can buy little stickers to put on your keyboard if you change the layout.

It really is a fascinating thought that we that we hang on to the layout that was implemented because it was the SLOWEST.

If memory serves me right there are layout in MS for only right/left hand to.

[TheStig000]

You can change it in windows but really the standard way seems fine. I see no reason to learn a new layout once I understand this one so well.

[GaleAnders]

My laziness agrees 100% with you. I'm quite good with the qwerty, but my curiosity wants to know how fast I could become with the Dvorak.

Why shouldn't keyboards be capable of evolution?

;o)

- whether I ever get around to it is another matter... the laziness, you know.

[GaleAnders]

- and it would keep the wife away from your computer!

[EvilUmpire]

The "Typing Errors" article from the June 1996 issue of Reason magazine (Google "reason magazine dvorak") describes how the claimed advantages in speed and efficiency of the Dvorak keyboard are a myth. The article also states that the Dvorak layout offers no ergonomic advantage. The claimed advantages of Dvorak's layout come from Dvorak's own studies which tended to be biased. Independent studies reject his claims.

[adolthitler]

There should be no difference between keyboards as to computers. They output ascii just like a qwerty keyboard. The layout is only for us.

[EpicHiroDJ]

I don't recommend anyone trying to pop off the keys on a Macbook.....

[insainbassist]

@pdimatteo Been meaning to do this. I'm a programmer so I type a lot and I've heard Dvorak is much better for your hands.

[DanC9189]

I'm starting to get fed up with dawkins, he's to whiney. i like DD and hitchens better.

When the guy said design he doesnt need to be attacked for it, everyone knows what he means, but dawkins has to have a little hissy about it.

I'd be more interested in listening to the Docs ideas over dawkins, i like this guy.

[Schmoikel]

"When the guy said design he doesnt need to be attacked for it, everyone knows what he means, but dawkins has to have a little hissy about it."

Perhaps Dawkins is tired of being misquoted by creationists. Say, for example, Dawkins said the eye was poorly designed.  How many creationists would cheer and say, "Even the great atheist Dawkins admits design."?

[GaleAnders]

- and RD is Darwins Rottweiler ;o)

[GaleAnders]

BTW Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was called god's rottweiler.

He was also called the Panzer Cardinal witch I find mere fitting.

[DanC9189]

Thats a good point. I'd be pissed if that happened to me.

[Schmoikel]

"Thats a good point. I'd be pissed if that happened to me."

I'm sure most of us remember when the Expelled cretins interviewed Dawkins. That video clip is still being used by creationists. I would be careful too if I was constantly under the microscope of creationists.

[GuacamoleKun]

I totally see what you mean, but little picky shit like that has come up in philosophy classes that I've been in and to my surprise it's sometimes turned out to actually be important. I think he's just trying to get to the truth of everything. And yeah, like Schmoikel said, creationists will latch on to any little mistake.

[banditbutterfly]

I really enjoyed this. Excellent Interview.

[eremieb]

great

[silverstream314]

I love these interviews! Thanks alot for making them available!