Everyone knows that the first human is actually an asian. That's why we're so great. Jeremy Lin has reach asian level of difficulty. Black people are good at sport but asians will eventually rise up and be better at everything than any other humans.
Dawkins adresses intelligent people as they should be atheists. I consider him referring to the satanically stupid. Why he argues no first being? Ofcourse without God, therecannot be a first being. However there is a FIRST OBJECT. Some atheists colorfully state "I stepped out of a supernova". The theory as presented by other atheists "abiogenesis" revolves around a puddle of chemicals. So the first being according to atheists must be "son of the puddle of chemicals" ;) Your first ancestor. LOL
@ParadoxEternal How would inserting a God that apparently came from nothing and then created the universe from more nothing possibly be more intelligent?
@Pilaf1984 You go a believe in some random chaotic object that turned to other, mindlessly, and that you are sons of chemicals, and I will dismiss you as typical idolaters. THESE are myths, not a completely neccesary logical extreme. That CAN be experienced. Ask yourself why certain meditation such as "Paradox Void is the infinitely superior" has a great effect on the mind. You probably thought that was iterated through "natural selection" LOL? :)
The First Awakened Human In the Human Race, has to be "Re-engineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING, FEARFUL yet LOVING CREATOR GOD, If Your Break The Law, You'll be Thrown into the BURNING HELL Literally. Means, There was other "MUCH MORE ADVANCE & SUPREME ENTITY" that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE /Primate, As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Don't Tell me, The First Awakened Human, In the beginning of Human Race, had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This First Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to Fulfill Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Pls Explain >>>
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on to be Blended, We have implemented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, Mr Dawkins, You are SOOOOOOOOOOO Outdated/Backward/Stupid for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us ALL "HUMAN" Now....
It's too bad many of these Dawkins devotees don't look at bona fide scientific criticism of Darwinian theory. For example, certain intellectual traits are found only in birds and humans, and are nowhere to be seen in primates. Darwinists must therefore admit that their explanation of a common primate ancestor is flawed.
@Kinin4 From the internet: Parrots are an order of birds that strongly pursue the "K selection strategy," meaning the strategy of their species is one of quality, not quantity. According to Goodall, one parrot, N'kisi, knows 971 words, where "know" is defined as using the word five times independently in proper context — not just repeating what humans said. Parrots are capable of making comments and initiating short conversations.
No other animal has this ability. I will find more.
@mattlewis66 An October 2010 study published in NatGeo discussed the unique intellectual capacities of New Caledonian Crows and Western Scrub Jays. The authors called the sophisticated tool use of this crow as "unique in non-human wild animals." The authors also believe that there is stronger evidence that the jay imagines than anything that has been provided about great apes. So I ask, how can our alleged common ancestor be a primate when birds have intelligence that apes don't?
@mattlewis66 It is definately not unheard of for traits to evolve independent of each other in different species. I haven't read the article you refer to, and I don't know what you mean by "unique in non-human wild animals", it is quite common for apes to use tools.
Secondly, humans have the ability to mimic the actions of all other species (up to what's limited by our anatomy), but that does not imply we are equally related to all species.
That is hardly evidence against evolution. In fact, if anything, that is evidence FOR evolution. Evolution predicts that some organisms will independently evolve similar traits under similar selective pressures. As long as it contributes to survival, you might very well see it at different points in the evolutionary tree.
What you provided is CERTAINLY evidence against an omnipotent and omniscient designer, for he could just create anew instead of recycling ideas.
@Kinin4 You need to say that the primate line of animals developed to some degree or another all human intellectual powers for man to have descended from it through a trillion trillion series of accidental changes, and yet here are birds with some of those powers and modern primates with none. Your explanation boils down to blind faith of evolutionists: this happens because evolution says it will happen.
No, it happens because similar natural selection pressures yield similar results, and beneficial mutations are favored when they appear. Even by creationist standards that is a common-sense, testable, and established fact.
@Kinin4 The word "beneficial" means only what allows an organism to survive, it does not mean more perfect or superior. Thus, losing intellectual capacity, if it helps an organism to survive, would follow necessarily under evolutionary rules, which makes no sense. Ok, so explain how an organism which is a bird shares intellectual powers with man but no other homology? If apes did not exhibit any intelligence would you still be looking at apes descendants from the same line?
There's no such thing as "more perfect" or "superior" in evolution; there's no "ultimate, end result" that evolution naturally leads toward.
And intellectual capacity usually DOES help an organism to survive; being able to retain information about the routes that prey usually take, knowing how to use tools, etc.
And all animals share one thing or another, in an intellectual sense, with humans. Burds are not special in that regard.
@mattlewis66 Apes do have intelligence, but you have to be cautious about how you define intelligence. they certainly have the capacity to lear rudimentary human language using lexicons and american sign language, look up sue savage rumbagh to get a complete look, you can also define intelligence to some degree as the ability to understand and decern the envioronment which is vital, also problem solving, however it would be wasteful to evolve to big a brain if you dont need it.
Just because you say a book may not be true doesn't mean you understand it.
That's half the problem. It's a fact, that most lowly educated regions of the world are religious, and the majority of these people have not had the fact of evolution explained to them or they are completely unaware of it. 21st century now, such a shame. There really is no alternative that stands up to the rigours of investigation apart from natural selection.
"does adam mean anything to any body .at least adam was scientically recorded in what we call the bible .there is no evedence that we came from a monkeys womb nor does that make any sense . what else can this guy make up next " - Comment by Gleantheword.
Just thought someone out there could use a laugh, I know I did.
HEY SILLY YECs!!! HAVE A LOOK AT (AND READ THE TEXT) OF MY VIDEO CALLED "IMPACTS DESTROY FLOOD". IF YOU THINK THE WORLD IS 6000 YRS OLD, THIS VIDEO WILL INDICATE OTHERWISE! WITHOUT ANY "ROCKET-SCIENCE" JUST EASY (SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES) STUFF AND COMMON SENSE (OF WHICH YOU YECs DON'T HAVE).
Yesterday I was a child and today I am a man. how can Dawkins use the growth from baby to adult to explain evolution? man this guy really needs to give up!
@stargasm1 sorry forgive my ignorance but unless I am wrong; there is a big difference between growing up, and evolution! I mean is this the argument you atheist have to resort to?
@decosteve71 You are correct. There is a difference as referenced by Richard Dawkins. You and he agree on this point. He also states that is not how evolution works. Please read about evolution.
@decosteve71 he didn't say growing up was the same as evolution, he was trying to describe how gradual changes to our body do not get noticed day by day.
@Gleantheword first wtf saying scientifically recorded in the bible just sounds dumb. Secondly the story of Adam and eve is genetically impossible. Also you say there is no evidence for evolution. You're joking right there are massive amounts of evidence wether it be genetic, geologic, or of course pure logic. Evolution didn't become a fact without it being proven repeatedly over the 200 years that it has been around.
does adam mean anything to any body .at least adam was scientically recorded in what we call the bible .there is no evedence that we came from a monkeys womb nor does that make any sense . what else can this guy make up next
@Gleantheword I'm sorry did you just say "Scientifically recorded in the bible"? The fact that you would equate a written record of a passed down story as scientific evidence shows that you know very little of what evidence is.
What you have explained is here-say, then written down with no accounts or reliable witnesses other than a 2000 year old book. A book that has been passed down through word of mouth, translated, re-translated, interpreted and omitted considerably.
@Gleantheword (cont.) Nor has Dawkins said that any homo-sapien had come from a monkey's womb... he simply said that evolution was a gradual process & that humans and modern day apes had come from a common ancestor.
Think of it this way.. a dog is not a wolf, but through even our own social experiments/ domestication we are aware that dogs have come from wolves. Even the minute chihuahua have descended from wolf ancestry. Looking similar but very different in many ways than it's ancestor.
@Gleantheword (cont.) If you continue to think of modern day domesticated dogs as humans, and wolves as our ancestors (ape like), then you can see vast similarities. Like the fact that wolves can not bark, and dogs can. Making it akin to humans learning speech patterns and being able to talk in dialects other than grunts/growls. The fact that dogs coats are more varied being similar to the diversion of races etc.
Evolution are all around us. Some, like the dog, we as humans have facilitated.
of course he has proof, people like you just sit there with your hands over your ears and your eyes shut. just look for the proof and you'll find huge amounts of it.
Dont avail, dont apply, dont use. Go walk by your feet, eat by your bare hands, dont wear clothes, dont eat bread but fruits, dont use cellfon but approach the person miles away that you want to talk with, ....and finally dont use internet or this YOUTUBE to make comments to this comment hahahah
if you dont believe in Science then DONT avail any high tech man-made product which is absolutely the product of scientific investigation so as to be consistent of your non-scientific claims
I can't help but feel that Richard Dawkins seems every bit as presumptuous and overly assured of himself as the most backward, single-minded religious zealot.
two days ago ı put all the ıngredients of my ıtalian pizza on the table. Holy shıt yesterday all ıngredıent decıded to be come together and cook ıtself to make a delıcıous pızza for me.Is thıs possıble ? YES. according to hım.
Lıke the ıngredıents of pızza, all the human organs decıded to join together and compose this mindful Human beıng. Bull shıt ıt s ımpossıble.Does this organs have an intelegence to create human body or does that organısmas have an ıntelegence to form a Human cell allalone
@mmgezer pizza is made by humans. species arise by evolution. go and study it if you dont understand it and save us you non-sequiter bullshit. Alright a god did it, OK so which god? hanuman, Vishnu, zoroaster, zeus, Thor, Posiedon, ..Oh I get it, your favorite one, I mean the one you were taught by your parents. Grow up and get educated, the high schools and colleges are always accepting students.
@ofosusam Same God who create all Universe and the all things inside. İf you think very complex human body from head to toe came into existance from some mindless species and all happend by chance, you think totally wrong. explain to me how does it happen by chance. As a believer I dont get it, if there is something created there must be someone who create it. And I believe The Creater, Mıghty Lord.
@mmgezer Yes, so which god created the complex human body? And if something cannot come from nothing as you say, where did the gods come from? Who created them? Evolution has some random element but the whole process is not random or by chance as you claim. It is the non-guided accumulation of genetic traits over severl generations. I know it is hard to grasp but if you read biology you will understand it. We see it in the lab everyday.
@mmgezer Really, really simple: TAKE SOME BIOLOGY CLASSES AND LEARN ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES OF EVOLUTION. How is that so hard to do? "I don't get it, it makes no sense. Religious people say it's this way, and that makes sense. Religious people also say evolution is such and such, which sounds stupid, so evolution must be wrong." Why don't you learn what evolution is and how it works by learning it from the people who actually understand it—SCIENTISTS, BIOLOGISTS, not religious nuts.
So, you get slightly different forms of species, until they get so obviously different they are eventually classed as a new species. Something like that.
BUUUUURN IN HELL FOREVER YOU EVIL SCIENTIST EDUCATED INTELLIGENT ATHEISTS WHILE WE GOD-BELIEVING IDIOTS WILL BE FUCKING OUR 72 VIRGINS AND STICKING UNICORN'S HORNS UP OUR ASS IN HEAVEN IN GOD'S KINGDOM WITH JESUS CHRIST SITTING at the right hand side of God :-D HAHAHA
So u r saying that I think I'm superior to religious people ? I'm just calling those people dumb who think that it is far better to pretend to a Universe as we might wish it to be than to understand the Universe as it really is.
@AtheismGate anyone debating creationists, just go to facebook. com/creationistssuck and copy and paste the 'info.' Immediate pwnage. - Think about Christopher Hitchens vs the 5 christians debate
@AtheismGate Ken Miller is an evolutionary biologist and a Roman Catholic. John Polkinghorne was a prof. of theoretical physics at Cambridge Uni he is now an ordained priest. They might be deluded but they are certainly not unintelligent.
This is dumb. More pseudoscience. Centuries of history dictate that there has been no evolution. Even if you don't believe in Creationism specifically, it is easy to toss out evolution. Dawkins uses made-up explanations to promote an "ideology" of his own. It might as well be another religion. Its false. He's a pawn of Satan and has no truth or power.
Why then are humans occassionally born with a full length tail, showing that in our genome we have atavistic genes from our distant primate ancestors?
Did "Yahweh" put them there for a joke?
Also, sinc eyou belief magic man made life; did Yahweh use a wand or just click his fingers, or is cutting-edge research in "creation science" still trying to answer this incredibly important question? I can see why creation science is so important, lol.
@highnote60Dawkins is simply one of the most famous evolutionary biologist but he is certainly not the only one. according to you evolution is rubbish then explain why do accredited universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard et al have Biology departments that specialize in evolutionary biology. If it were pseudo science then these learning centres of excellence wouldn't entertain it. Perhaps you believe that they should have a human biology dept where they teach the baby and stork theory!
'Even if you don't believe in Creationism specifically, it is easy to toss out evolution'. Creationists do not believe in evolution this is the reason they are called creationists i.e. they believe god created each individual creature on earth. Evolutionists argue that complex life form evolved from earlier life forms. You really are a knob
Anyone who sees this video and still says "Where are the transitional fossils?" should be forcibly sterilized so they can't pollute the gene pool with stupid.
We are evolving now! Every time a woman has a child, that child looks different from it's parents, not much but it never looks exacly the same. Listen to the video again, Dawkins fully explain the answer.
Small changes takes small time, therefore a child never fully look like it's parents. Large changes takes long time. You would have to live a long time to see any big evolutionary changes, much longer than a normal humans lifespan.
@Lokibaldr the child looks different to its mother, due to the fact that it has some genes of the father as well as the mother, its a matter of the chromosomes, that has nothing to do with evolving,
@mademan4life Lol that is exactly what evolution is -- caused by random changes in the genome that appear in the chromosomes. You just defeated your own argument.
Don't understand why atheists bother debating with creationists on YouTube, it's the people who are not sure we need to converse with, because they're the tipping point. As soon as we get these people on side, religion should fall into line.
@Bladen12345 Blacks? Sort of. Although it should be stressed that modern people with dark skin are exactly as distantly removed from our common black ancestors as modern people with white skin.
The reason he had to drag it out is because there are millions of confused people out there who do not get these simple points about evolution (or they just don't want to)
@screenpuller And thanks to you too. A small flotsam of decent discourse in an ocean of YouTube sarcasm, ridicule and bellicosity. I pretty much agree with Dawkins on most things, and my ignorance probably accounts for those things upon which we disagree. Principally Dawkins sees science as the whole story, a story which will be wholly known given enough time to investigate. This may be true but I have intuitive doubts. But intuition is subjective humanness rather than objective scienceness.
@PaulP567, true, very true... look at poor Neanderthal... for whatever reason(s) they are no longer around. Maybe our kind just kinda pulled the lucky card from the deck & it all just snowballed from there. :) Btw, i heard a great interview of Prof. Dawkins.. it actually touched o a few points we have... Youtube search "Richard Dawkins interviewed by Penn Gillette". Very interesting stuff, cheers.
@PaulP567, It's so nice to hear lucid, intelligent responses. thanks, btw. I don't know if i'm going off on a wild tangent, but look a Koko the gorilla. She loved her kitten & if I remember correctly, some apes in captivity seem to develope a genuine affinity for drawing or painting. If given the chance, might these guys, bonobos, chimps, gorillas & orangs, begin to evolve some sort of thought processes similar to ours?
@screenpuller They might. But evolution is by no means automatic along a given route that appears to us with hindsight to be inevitable. The odds against the other primates developing as we have done are colossal. If the odds were in favor then there would likely now be numerous different species on the planet with which we could communicate on equal terms but could not mate. A most interesting scenario. For sure we would have killed them all, or they us. We can't even leave our own in peace.
@PaulP567, very true, but many people have feelings towards animals that can be just as intense & heartfelt as toward a loved one. I guess maybe our morality also give us the ability to empathize outside our own species. I wonder if the developement of language had anything to do with our advanced thinking process?
@screenpuller Language separates us from all other living things. I think language is inextricably linked to our advanced thinking process. People tend to think in words. It is also inextricably linked with consciousness, and therein lays the mystery. Conciousness thus far has no molecular explanation. And acruing to the account of conciousness are all the many other unsolved mysteries of the human condition - poetry, literature, music, love, the colors of the rainbow and the scent of a rose.
@PaulP567, THAT'S a good question! If animals go by pure instinct, knowing no "good" or "evil", then what, I wonder, causes some animals to display what could only be described as vicious behavior towards their own kind, as well as what could clearly be seen as empathy. Our closest genetic relatives, chimps, do this regularly. So why DO we develope "morality" & other animals haven't? It's a "tootsie pop" kinda question... the world may never know, good thing we have science, huh? :)
@screenpuller Our sense of morality is a product of evolution in the sense that its development enhanced our survival. It is easy to see that as our physical prowess diminished other, more subtle factors came into play. The coundrum is that while we are moral within our own species we are seemingly immoral towards other living creatures. Towards other living creatures we behave just as they do. And worse; we kill them for sport. We enslave them for our amusement. Some we treat like crops.
@PaulP567, good point. Sometimes I wonder if some of the "smarter" animals like dolphins or apes actually have some capacity for abstract thought or the ability to ponder their own mortality. Thank goodness science isn't stagnant... it gives all of us some great subject matter to discuss. XD
@screenpuller Something we will likely never know I guess. One thing is absolutely clear, especially when I see the buzzards raiding the nests of the crows, and that is they have no moral issues. If I behaved like that among members of my kind I would be deemed evil in the extreme. Which is just another curiosity about the human condition. Why should a different collection and arrangement of molecular DNA require something called 'morality' in play?
@PaulP567, I CERTAINLY don't claim to be an expert... just thought i'd let ya know, but in my opinion, I think it came about when humans first began using fire to their advantage. It allowed for more free time, i.e. not hunting or gathering, therefor more time to ponder abstract concepts. I think it allowed for a sense of "self", our place in the world & the concept of something "beyond" mortality. I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter, thanks. :)
Humans probably used other tools efficiently but i its kinda ambiguous if you refer to one species as the one who utilized fire, their parents who gave birth to them weren't human?
Biology doesn't work that way. The definition of species is kinda strict, a population capable of interbreeding within themselves and capable of delivering fertile offpsring is a species.
I'ts like saying im not human because i don't use a pc.
@Ryosuke1208 Homo sapiens has evolved in various simultaneous directions to give us the races we have today. The different races are collectively the same species by definition of their interbreedability. Not enough evolutionary time has elapsed to create separate species and/or determine which will survive and which will go extinct. It is likely, though, that Darwinian natural selection as we understand it has stopped and been superseded by social and otherwise 'artificial' selection.
@screenpuller The gradualness of the evolutionary process seems to be in conflict with the demonstrable ungradualness of humanity's all-conquering progress since around 30,000 years ago. Up until then the modus operandi of homo sapiens was comparable to that of his companion animals. And then suddenly there was a dramatic departure, the result of which in only 30,000 years is me typing this script and you reading it.. To the speculative mind something is not sitting quite right here. But what?
@screenpuller "Beyond mortality" has theological but not scientific meaning. It is interesting that while wilderbeest and pigeons, et al, are purely scientific in their dealings with the natural world, that is to say they stay firmly within the fields of evidence that surround them, we humans are keen to speculate on 'other worldly' fields of evidence. The really interesting question is what possesed the forces of evolution to send us down that route - figuratively speaking.
@PaulP567... point taken, friend. I guess I really know what you meant, my bad. :) The BBC program IS seriously good, maybe you can find it online... double dvd, well worth it, i've watched it many times.
@screenpuller I located the BBC art program and it was excellent. I'm still curious, though, as to why food cooking, dead burying and cave painting all started at more or less the same time after thousands of years of being 'human'. The cave paintings seem to have had a religious or at least a transendental root. I wonder if it was coincidental with our consciousness being 'switched on' as it were. I can't help but feel that 'humanness' as we understand it had a definite and sudden begining.
It's just as Darwin wrote 150 years ago, "I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species." Once you understand the idea of Species being transmutable it's easy to see there never was a single 1st member of a species, with the whole process being gradual. But this doesn't mean that the term "species" is meaningless or that biological classification is impossible.
speciation is a lie becuase we should also be observing kingdomation, phylumation, classation, orderation, familyation, and genusation, so evolution fails once again.
@PaulP567, maybe not gradually over millions of years, but several thousand at least. There is a great program by the BBC called "How Art Made The World". It explains in fascinating detail, through much scientific study, how people first began creating art & it's purpose. Try to find it, it is VERY interesting. Oh, btw, people (humans) ARE animals... we are part of the animal kingdom. XD
@screenpuller Thanks for the BBC heads-up. I'll see if I can find the program. cave paintings seem to have appeared about 30,000 years ago in the beautiful forms we are all familiar with. There seems to be a 'fossil gap', as it were, previous to that.
Yes of course we are all animals, or mammals, or primates. We are all life-forms for that matter. I use the terms 'humanness' and 'animalness' to distinguish between characteristics of the two groupings which I don't think need explaining.
@jsamari Well the Sea of Tranquility wouldn't work for you either, but the Mare Erythraeum might. NASA is the go-to place, but don't bank on it. Good luck.
Did we gradually, i.e. over millions of years, start cooking our food, burying our dead, painting the walls of caves? How does one gradually cook one's food or gradually bury one's dead? Cave paintings seem pretty much to have appeared as we are used to seeing them. How did the art form gradually appear with the gradualness of humanity's development? It is these things which seem to characterise humanness as opposed to animalness.
i vaguely remember a video from another evolutionary biologist who presented indicators that speciation happens relatively quick, the new species is going to stay nearly the same for a very long time, before again dividing into others in massively shorter time span then it remained stable.
I'm not contradicting Dawkins here, the change is still gradual, but its not constant or evenly spread, but is happening in surges (surges=thousands of years)
it would be great if there was a way to actually see every one of these cards...every picture.... excellent explanation from dr dawkins.... it had me looking for a movie, a card flip...anything that may have a scientists/artist rendering of what my 900,000,000th granddad would have looked like...thumbs way up...
As a population we are subtly different even from the human population of a few centuries back, though the differences would not be visible to the naked eye or universal to every individual: for example, the gene complexes allowing for the digestion of lactose are far more common now than they were in the Middle Ages. So yes, we are today subtly different from "early" humans (our descendants will doubtless consider 21st century humans "early" as well).
@0BatGirl0 Every generation changes slightly, so no we are not identical. Can we breed with early humans - I guess so, else they wouldn't be classified as humans :)
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
Looks like "The Magic of Reality" is aimed towards the scientifically illiterate. The previews show the elementary undergrad stuff, but I do hope it sells well. Our species needs more books like this on the shelves.
I have no idea why people still resist the evolution. Our species is no old enough to have actually seen it occurring in the environment around us, and even in the human race itself. Its like saying the earth is flat.
But I'v never really got the mentality of people who troll so...
Everyone knows that the first human is actually an asian. That's why we're so great. Jeremy Lin has reach asian level of difficulty. Black people are good at sport but asians will eventually rise up and be better at everything than any other humans.
bruceliem 1 week ago
Comment removed
W0D1intha818 1 week ago
that what's you came up with>>>>>> Fish
adnan271 1 week ago
Thank you Richard Dawkins.
Slowly eroding religious stupidity one day at a time
northoforacle 1 week ago
Dawkins adresses intelligent people as they should be atheists. I consider him referring to the satanically stupid. Why he argues no first being? Ofcourse without God, therecannot be a first being. However there is a FIRST OBJECT. Some atheists colorfully state "I stepped out of a supernova". The theory as presented by other atheists "abiogenesis" revolves around a puddle of chemicals. So the first being according to atheists must be "son of the puddle of chemicals" ;) Your first ancestor. LOL
ParadoxEternal 2 weeks ago
@ParadoxEternal How would inserting a God that apparently came from nothing and then created the universe from more nothing possibly be more intelligent?
Pilaf1984 1 week ago
@Pilaf1984 You go a believe in some random chaotic object that turned to other, mindlessly, and that you are sons of chemicals, and I will dismiss you as typical idolaters. THESE are myths, not a completely neccesary logical extreme. That CAN be experienced. Ask yourself why certain meditation such as "Paradox Void is the infinitely superior" has a great effect on the mind. You probably thought that was iterated through "natural selection" LOL? :)
ParadoxEternal 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The First Awakened Human In the Human Race, has to be "Re-engineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING, FEARFUL yet LOVING CREATOR GOD, If Your Break The Law, You'll be Thrown into the BURNING HELL Literally. Means, There was other "MUCH MORE ADVANCE & SUPREME ENTITY" that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE /Primate, As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Ordeal1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't Tell me, The First Awakened Human, In the beginning of Human Race, had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This First Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to Fulfill Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Pls Explain >>>
Ordeal1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on to be Blended, We have implemented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, Mr Dawkins, You are SOOOOOOOOOOO Outdated/Backward/Stupid for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us ALL "HUMAN" Now....
Ordeal1000 1 week ago
@ParadoxEternal too much acid for you....
the brain is atomic, it obeys atomic laws!
azmanabdula 1 week ago
@Pilaf1984 agreed!
azmanabdula 1 week ago
@ParadoxEternal "I stepped out of a supernova"
who on earth have you been hanging out with?
god isnt an answer....
its filling in the blanks...
azmanabdula 1 week ago
adam and eve
mileyKdancer14 3 weeks ago
@mileyKdancer14 i hope your joking lol
quayle99 1 week ago
so you claim
pinball281 3 weeks ago
i ate god's asshole
guywithface99 3 weeks ago
It's too bad many of these Dawkins devotees don't look at bona fide scientific criticism of Darwinian theory. For example, certain intellectual traits are found only in birds and humans, and are nowhere to be seen in primates. Darwinists must therefore admit that their explanation of a common primate ancestor is flawed.
mattlewis66 1 month ago
@mattlewis66
Can you please provide examples?
Kinin4 4 weeks ago
@Kinin4 From the internet: Parrots are an order of birds that strongly pursue the "K selection strategy," meaning the strategy of their species is one of quality, not quantity. According to Goodall, one parrot, N'kisi, knows 971 words, where "know" is defined as using the word five times independently in proper context — not just repeating what humans said. Parrots are capable of making comments and initiating short conversations.
No other animal has this ability. I will find more.
mattlewis66 3 weeks ago
@mattlewis66 An October 2010 study published in NatGeo discussed the unique intellectual capacities of New Caledonian Crows and Western Scrub Jays. The authors called the sophisticated tool use of this crow as "unique in non-human wild animals." The authors also believe that there is stronger evidence that the jay imagines than anything that has been provided about great apes. So I ask, how can our alleged common ancestor be a primate when birds have intelligence that apes don't?
mattlewis66 3 weeks ago
@mattlewis66 It is definately not unheard of for traits to evolve independent of each other in different species. I haven't read the article you refer to, and I don't know what you mean by "unique in non-human wild animals", it is quite common for apes to use tools.
Secondly, humans have the ability to mimic the actions of all other species (up to what's limited by our anatomy), but that does not imply we are equally related to all species.
Fuglebolle 3 weeks ago
@mattlewis66
That is hardly evidence against evolution. In fact, if anything, that is evidence FOR evolution. Evolution predicts that some organisms will independently evolve similar traits under similar selective pressures. As long as it contributes to survival, you might very well see it at different points in the evolutionary tree.
What you provided is CERTAINLY evidence against an omnipotent and omniscient designer, for he could just create anew instead of recycling ideas.
Kinin4 3 weeks ago
@Kinin4 You need to say that the primate line of animals developed to some degree or another all human intellectual powers for man to have descended from it through a trillion trillion series of accidental changes, and yet here are birds with some of those powers and modern primates with none. Your explanation boils down to blind faith of evolutionists: this happens because evolution says it will happen.
mattlewis66 3 weeks ago
@mattlewis66 derp evolutionist are bad heeerrrp.
scheme86 3 weeks ago
@mattlewis66
No, it happens because similar natural selection pressures yield similar results, and beneficial mutations are favored when they appear. Even by creationist standards that is a common-sense, testable, and established fact.
Kinin4 3 weeks ago
@Kinin4 The word "beneficial" means only what allows an organism to survive, it does not mean more perfect or superior. Thus, losing intellectual capacity, if it helps an organism to survive, would follow necessarily under evolutionary rules, which makes no sense. Ok, so explain how an organism which is a bird shares intellectual powers with man but no other homology? If apes did not exhibit any intelligence would you still be looking at apes descendants from the same line?
mattlewis66 3 weeks ago
@mattlewis66
There's no such thing as "more perfect" or "superior" in evolution; there's no "ultimate, end result" that evolution naturally leads toward.
And intellectual capacity usually DOES help an organism to survive; being able to retain information about the routes that prey usually take, knowing how to use tools, etc.
And all animals share one thing or another, in an intellectual sense, with humans. Burds are not special in that regard.
Kinin4 3 weeks ago
@Kinin4
Birds*
Kinin4 3 weeks ago
@mattlewis66 Apes do have intelligence, but you have to be cautious about how you define intelligence. they certainly have the capacity to lear rudimentary human language using lexicons and american sign language, look up sue savage rumbagh to get a complete look, you can also define intelligence to some degree as the ability to understand and decern the envioronment which is vital, also problem solving, however it would be wasteful to evolve to big a brain if you dont need it.
benwarmaster666 3 weeks ago
WHY DONT HE JUST SAY THAT I DONT KNOW,,,
MegaYiwen 1 month ago
@MegaYiwen wtf.. Did you watch the video?
DDazzle1 1 month ago
@MegaYiwen
How typical of uneducated Creationists. You didn't watch the video. The answer is obviously "There was none", not "We don't know".
Kinin4 4 weeks ago
brilliant Richard, once again
mcake1234 1 month ago
If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
nsugathadasa 1 month ago 3
Why are religious people on Richard Dawkins videos and commenting I don't type in Jesus and complain about religion by commenting.
PSFANBOY07 1 month ago 8
@PSFANBOY07 fear
MrMikeLancs 2 weeks ago
@KrazyKKid just because someone writes a book doesn't mean it's true.
PSFANBOY07 1 month ago
Just because you say a book may not be true doesn't mean you understand it.
That's half the problem. It's a fact, that most lowly educated regions of the world are religious, and the majority of these people have not had the fact of evolution explained to them or they are completely unaware of it. 21st century now, such a shame. There really is no alternative that stands up to the rigours of investigation apart from natural selection.
mcake1234 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"does adam mean anything to any body .at least adam was scientically recorded in what we call the bible .there is no evedence that we came from a monkeys womb nor does that make any sense . what else can this guy make up next " - Comment by Gleantheword.
Just thought someone out there could use a laugh, I know I did.
KrazyKKid 1 month ago
Crazy tie!!!
1001orpheus 1 month ago
HEY SILLY YECs!!! HAVE A LOOK AT (AND READ THE TEXT) OF MY VIDEO CALLED "IMPACTS DESTROY FLOOD". IF YOU THINK THE WORLD IS 6000 YRS OLD, THIS VIDEO WILL INDICATE OTHERWISE! WITHOUT ANY "ROCKET-SCIENCE" JUST EASY (SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES) STUFF AND COMMON SENSE (OF WHICH YOU YECs DON'T HAVE).
Justwantahover 1 month ago
@Justwantahover The shittiest pitch ever. Drop the capitals and the insults, they make you look like an idiot.
MissInformati0n 1 month ago
@MissInformati0n YOUR PITCH IS PRETTY SHITTY TOO!
Justwantahover 1 month ago
Awesome tie :D
trooper600 2 months ago
Yesterday I was a child and today I am a man. how can Dawkins use the growth from baby to adult to explain evolution? man this guy really needs to give up!
decosteve71 2 months ago
@decosteve71 Does anyone ever tell you that you have your mom's eyes or your dad's nose or something? Please read about evolution.
stargasm1 2 months ago
@stargasm1 sorry forgive my ignorance but unless I am wrong; there is a big difference between growing up, and evolution! I mean is this the argument you atheist have to resort to?
decosteve71 2 months ago
@decosteve71 You are correct. There is a difference as referenced by Richard Dawkins. You and he agree on this point. He also states that is not how evolution works. Please read about evolution.
stargasm1 2 months ago
@decosteve71 he didn't say growing up was the same as evolution, he was trying to describe how gradual changes to our body do not get noticed day by day.
ba252504 1 month ago
@decosteve71 He didn't say that. Please do a youtube search on evolution for beginners.
truvelocity 1 month ago
@Gleantheword first wtf saying scientifically recorded in the bible just sounds dumb. Secondly the story of Adam and eve is genetically impossible. Also you say there is no evidence for evolution. You're joking right there are massive amounts of evidence wether it be genetic, geologic, or of course pure logic. Evolution didn't become a fact without it being proven repeatedly over the 200 years that it has been around.
kyekire 2 months ago
We know the truth now,religion is pooing it self. Science is the new religion long live rational thinking
TheRedrum79 2 months ago
does adam mean anything to any body .at least adam was scientically recorded in what we call the bible .there is no evedence that we came from a monkeys womb nor does that make any sense . what else can this guy make up next
Gleantheword 2 months ago
@Gleantheword I'm sorry did you just say "Scientifically recorded in the bible"? The fact that you would equate a written record of a passed down story as scientific evidence shows that you know very little of what evidence is.
What you have explained is here-say, then written down with no accounts or reliable witnesses other than a 2000 year old book. A book that has been passed down through word of mouth, translated, re-translated, interpreted and omitted considerably.
kylvin318 2 months ago
@Gleantheword (cont.) Nor has Dawkins said that any homo-sapien had come from a monkey's womb... he simply said that evolution was a gradual process & that humans and modern day apes had come from a common ancestor.
Think of it this way.. a dog is not a wolf, but through even our own social experiments/ domestication we are aware that dogs have come from wolves. Even the minute chihuahua have descended from wolf ancestry. Looking similar but very different in many ways than it's ancestor.
kylvin318 2 months ago
@Gleantheword (cont.) If you continue to think of modern day domesticated dogs as humans, and wolves as our ancestors (ape like), then you can see vast similarities. Like the fact that wolves can not bark, and dogs can. Making it akin to humans learning speech patterns and being able to talk in dialects other than grunts/growls. The fact that dogs coats are more varied being similar to the diversion of races etc.
Evolution are all around us. Some, like the dog, we as humans have facilitated.
kylvin318 2 months ago
that is so easy to say that all came from one species...but he doesn't have any proof....talking is one thing, proving is another thing...
emanparin 2 months ago
of course he has proof, people like you just sit there with your hands over your ears and your eyes shut. just look for the proof and you'll find huge amounts of it.
ollielegend14 2 months ago
I was an atheist until I realized Richard Dawkins exists.
HipHopWorldStar 2 months ago 3
Dont avail, dont apply, dont use. Go walk by your feet, eat by your bare hands, dont wear clothes, dont eat bread but fruits, dont use cellfon but approach the person miles away that you want to talk with, ....and finally dont use internet or this YOUTUBE to make comments to this comment hahahah
WAFADAH 3 months ago
if you dont believe in Science then DONT avail any high tech man-made product which is absolutely the product of scientific investigation so as to be consistent of your non-scientific claims
WAFADAH 3 months ago
lol
WAFADAH 3 months ago
WTF!! that aint my grandaddy
MrJuot234 3 months ago
I love the examples he gives to illustrate evolution. Very nice.
Jomacov 3 months ago 2
I can't help but feel that Richard Dawkins seems every bit as presumptuous and overly assured of himself as the most backward, single-minded religious zealot.
wcuppett 3 months ago
@wcuppett
As always, only retards and religious morons think that Richard Dawkins is religious.
IulianRemo 2 months ago 15
hey evil atheists have u lost your sense of humor or do i have to add the sarcasm tag every fucking time i make a comment lol
armanduk2010 3 months ago
Brilliant way to explain for people with small knowledge of evolution.
MikeoWar 3 months ago
two days ago ı put all the ıngredients of my ıtalian pizza on the table. Holy shıt yesterday all ıngredıent decıded to be come together and cook ıtself to make a delıcıous pızza for me.Is thıs possıble ? YES. according to hım.
Lıke the ıngredıents of pızza, all the human organs decıded to join together and compose this mindful Human beıng. Bull shıt ıt s ımpossıble.Does this organs have an intelegence to create human body or does that organısmas have an ıntelegence to form a Human cell allalone
mmgezer 3 months ago
@mmgezer Pick up a biology book
cuevasdecamuy 3 months ago
@mmgezer pizza is made by humans. species arise by evolution. go and study it if you dont understand it and save us you non-sequiter bullshit. Alright a god did it, OK so which god? hanuman, Vishnu, zoroaster, zeus, Thor, Posiedon, ..Oh I get it, your favorite one, I mean the one you were taught by your parents. Grow up and get educated, the high schools and colleges are always accepting students.
ofosusam 3 months ago
@ofosusam Same God who create all Universe and the all things inside. İf you think very complex human body from head to toe came into existance from some mindless species and all happend by chance, you think totally wrong. explain to me how does it happen by chance. As a believer I dont get it, if there is something created there must be someone who create it. And I believe The Creater, Mıghty Lord.
mmgezer 3 months ago
@mmgezer Yes, so which god created the complex human body? And if something cannot come from nothing as you say, where did the gods come from? Who created them? Evolution has some random element but the whole process is not random or by chance as you claim. It is the non-guided accumulation of genetic traits over severl generations. I know it is hard to grasp but if you read biology you will understand it. We see it in the lab everyday.
ofosusam 3 months ago
@mmgezer Really, really simple: TAKE SOME BIOLOGY CLASSES AND LEARN ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES OF EVOLUTION. How is that so hard to do? "I don't get it, it makes no sense. Religious people say it's this way, and that makes sense. Religious people also say evolution is such and such, which sounds stupid, so evolution must be wrong." Why don't you learn what evolution is and how it works by learning it from the people who actually understand it—SCIENTISTS, BIOLOGISTS, not religious nuts.
seventh77 3 months ago
@mmgezer Clearly you have no knowledge of biology or evolution. Yay for smrts!!!
seventh77 3 months ago
So, you get slightly different forms of species, until they get so obviously different they are eventually classed as a new species. Something like that.
G3org3Master 3 months ago
Scroll up! Below be trolls!
Mandragara 3 months ago
Brilliant analogy.
hinterstella 3 months ago
@armanduk2010 how lovely and holy of you to say so.
PaigeMDawkins 3 months ago
BUUUUURN IN HELL FOREVER YOU EVIL SCIENTIST EDUCATED INTELLIGENT ATHEISTS WHILE WE GOD-BELIEVING IDIOTS WILL BE FUCKING OUR 72 VIRGINS AND STICKING UNICORN'S HORNS UP OUR ASS IN HEAVEN IN GOD'S KINGDOM WITH JESUS CHRIST SITTING at the right hand side of God :-D HAHAHA
armanduk2010 3 months ago
@armanduk2010 shut up
tedoymisojos 3 months ago
Any reason why the earlier man has Afro hair? Not racial. only a scientific question.
nsugathadasa 3 months ago
There are two classes of men:
1.) Intelligent men without religion.
2.) Religious men without intelligence.
AtheismGate 3 months ago 4
@AtheismGate a new form of superior thinking lets wipe them out! its like racism for the mind i love it(sarcasm)
DeJay17Revolution 3 months ago
@DeJay17Revolution
So u r saying that I think I'm superior to religious people ? I'm just calling those people dumb who think that it is far better to pretend to a Universe as we might wish it to be than to understand the Universe as it really is.
AtheismGate 3 months ago
@AtheismGate your calling people who disagree with you less intelligent thus you claim some superiority over them
DeJay17Revolution 3 months ago
@DeJay17Revolution
Not with me, but Science, no matter how much proofs scientists provide, they would still stick to their faith.
AtheismGate 3 months ago
@AtheismGate anyone debating creationists, just go to facebook. com/creationistssuck and copy and paste the 'info.' Immediate pwnage. - Think about Christopher Hitchens vs the 5 christians debate
iliveon 3 months ago
@AtheismGate Ken Miller is an evolutionary biologist and a Roman Catholic. John Polkinghorne was a prof. of theoretical physics at Cambridge Uni he is now an ordained priest. They might be deluded but they are certainly not unintelligent.
DrMontague 3 months ago
This is dumb. More pseudoscience. Centuries of history dictate that there has been no evolution. Even if you don't believe in Creationism specifically, it is easy to toss out evolution. Dawkins uses made-up explanations to promote an "ideology" of his own. It might as well be another religion. Its false. He's a pawn of Satan and has no truth or power.
highnote606 3 months ago
@highnote606
Why then are humans occassionally born with a full length tail, showing that in our genome we have atavistic genes from our distant primate ancestors?
Did "Yahweh" put them there for a joke?
Also, sinc eyou belief magic man made life; did Yahweh use a wand or just click his fingers, or is cutting-edge research in "creation science" still trying to answer this incredibly important question? I can see why creation science is so important, lol.
GnosticHumanist 3 months ago
@highnote60Dawkins is simply one of the most famous evolutionary biologist but he is certainly not the only one. according to you evolution is rubbish then explain why do accredited universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard et al have Biology departments that specialize in evolutionary biology. If it were pseudo science then these learning centres of excellence wouldn't entertain it. Perhaps you believe that they should have a human biology dept where they teach the baby and stork theory!
DrMontague 3 months ago
'Even if you don't believe in Creationism specifically, it is easy to toss out evolution'. Creationists do not believe in evolution this is the reason they are called creationists i.e. they believe god created each individual creature on earth. Evolutionists argue that complex life form evolved from earlier life forms. You really are a knob
DrMontague 3 months ago
Anyone who sees this video and still says "Where are the transitional fossils?" should be forcibly sterilized so they can't pollute the gene pool with stupid.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago 4
this vid made me lol
demonstrationclass8 3 months ago
how come we are not evolving now
mademan4life 3 months ago
@mademan4life .....really? Thats....sigh.
Yuri92001 3 months ago
@mademan4life
You ask "how come we are not evolving now?"
We are evolving now! Every time a woman has a child, that child looks different from it's parents, not much but it never looks exacly the same. Listen to the video again, Dawkins fully explain the answer.
Small changes takes small time, therefore a child never fully look like it's parents. Large changes takes long time. You would have to live a long time to see any big evolutionary changes, much longer than a normal humans lifespan.
Lokibaldr 3 months ago
@Lokibaldr the child looks different to its mother, due to the fact that it has some genes of the father as well as the mother, its a matter of the chromosomes, that has nothing to do with evolving,
mademan4life 3 months ago
@mademan4life You just described "evolving."
grumpyotter 3 months ago
@mademan4life Lol that is exactly what evolution is -- caused by random changes in the genome that appear in the chromosomes. You just defeated your own argument.
adi87tya 3 months ago 15
@adi87tya so u believed that things happened randomly? do u believe in magic too
gentileman23 1 month ago
Don't understand why atheists bother debating with creationists on YouTube, it's the people who are not sure we need to converse with, because they're the tipping point. As soon as we get these people on side, religion should fall into line.
Hohnetraz 3 months ago
"Third day vegetation. Fifth day birds & fish. Sixth day animals, followed by mankind" A PERFECT template for evolution...first 2 pages of the Bible.
NOTHING insanely inflames Dawkins more than that the Bible is consistent with evolution.
HOW could a tradition begin 5,000 years ago, that would perfectly identify evolution? They had NO paleontology...it's a mind-fucker!
Almost as much as Dawkin's creation of life...oh, that's impolite. Like pointing to someone's retard...EXACTLY like it!!!
WayneLynch69 4 months ago
@WayneLynch69 and dawkins thinks we came from rocks, and the bible says we came from the earth. win :D
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@WayneLynch69
So your proposition is that a coincidence renders evolutionary theory mere bunk?
That's kind of silly.
ClockworkMerc 3 months ago
@WayneLynch69 Where did the talking snake appear in the evolutionary line?
preston159 3 months ago 2
@WayneLynch69 .................
Yuri92001 3 months ago
@sulljoh1 human evolved?
guitfre 4 months ago
was it really necessary to carry out a thought experiment?
i thought it was pretty obvious that blacks are the original humans
Bladen12345 4 months ago
@Bladen12345 Blacks? Sort of. Although it should be stressed that modern people with dark skin are exactly as distantly removed from our common black ancestors as modern people with white skin.
The reason he had to drag it out is because there are millions of confused people out there who do not get these simple points about evolution (or they just don't want to)
sulljoh1 4 months ago
@Bladen12345 It's a kids' book.
kellygiz 4 months ago
@ PaupP567, Ilike that, that makes sense! :)
screenpuller 4 months ago
@PaulP567, hey, friend, just thought i'd say thanks again for a lively & fun conversation. Be nice to hear from ya every now & then... peace. :)
screenpuller 4 months ago
@screenpuller And thanks to you too. A small flotsam of decent discourse in an ocean of YouTube sarcasm, ridicule and bellicosity. I pretty much agree with Dawkins on most things, and my ignorance probably accounts for those things upon which we disagree. Principally Dawkins sees science as the whole story, a story which will be wholly known given enough time to investigate. This may be true but I have intuitive doubts. But intuition is subjective humanness rather than objective scienceness.
PaulP567 4 months ago
@PaulP567, true, very true... look at poor Neanderthal... for whatever reason(s) they are no longer around. Maybe our kind just kinda pulled the lucky card from the deck & it all just snowballed from there. :) Btw, i heard a great interview of Prof. Dawkins.. it actually touched o a few points we have... Youtube search "Richard Dawkins interviewed by Penn Gillette". Very interesting stuff, cheers.
screenpuller 4 months ago
SCREW YOU FORA TV!!! THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE FREE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE
geniemist 4 months ago 26
@PaulP567, It's so nice to hear lucid, intelligent responses. thanks, btw. I don't know if i'm going off on a wild tangent, but look a Koko the gorilla. She loved her kitten & if I remember correctly, some apes in captivity seem to develope a genuine affinity for drawing or painting. If given the chance, might these guys, bonobos, chimps, gorillas & orangs, begin to evolve some sort of thought processes similar to ours?
screenpuller 4 months ago
@screenpuller They might. But evolution is by no means automatic along a given route that appears to us with hindsight to be inevitable. The odds against the other primates developing as we have done are colossal. If the odds were in favor then there would likely now be numerous different species on the planet with which we could communicate on equal terms but could not mate. A most interesting scenario. For sure we would have killed them all, or they us. We can't even leave our own in peace.
PaulP567 4 months ago
@PaulP567, very true, but many people have feelings towards animals that can be just as intense & heartfelt as toward a loved one. I guess maybe our morality also give us the ability to empathize outside our own species. I wonder if the developement of language had anything to do with our advanced thinking process?
screenpuller 4 months ago
@screenpuller Language separates us from all other living things. I think language is inextricably linked to our advanced thinking process. People tend to think in words. It is also inextricably linked with consciousness, and therein lays the mystery. Conciousness thus far has no molecular explanation. And acruing to the account of conciousness are all the many other unsolved mysteries of the human condition - poetry, literature, music, love, the colors of the rainbow and the scent of a rose.
PaulP567 4 months ago
@PaulP567, THAT'S a good question! If animals go by pure instinct, knowing no "good" or "evil", then what, I wonder, causes some animals to display what could only be described as vicious behavior towards their own kind, as well as what could clearly be seen as empathy. Our closest genetic relatives, chimps, do this regularly. So why DO we develope "morality" & other animals haven't? It's a "tootsie pop" kinda question... the world may never know, good thing we have science, huh? :)
screenpuller 4 months ago
@screenpuller Our sense of morality is a product of evolution in the sense that its development enhanced our survival. It is easy to see that as our physical prowess diminished other, more subtle factors came into play. The coundrum is that while we are moral within our own species we are seemingly immoral towards other living creatures. Towards other living creatures we behave just as they do. And worse; we kill them for sport. We enslave them for our amusement. Some we treat like crops.
PaulP567 4 months ago
Dawkins and Hitchens are my heroes. There is no supernatural. Fuck ALL gods.
psychosocialmarc 4 months ago 2
@PaulP567, good point. Sometimes I wonder if some of the "smarter" animals like dolphins or apes actually have some capacity for abstract thought or the ability to ponder their own mortality. Thank goodness science isn't stagnant... it gives all of us some great subject matter to discuss. XD
screenpuller 4 months ago
@screenpuller Something we will likely never know I guess. One thing is absolutely clear, especially when I see the buzzards raiding the nests of the crows, and that is they have no moral issues. If I behaved like that among members of my kind I would be deemed evil in the extreme. Which is just another curiosity about the human condition. Why should a different collection and arrangement of molecular DNA require something called 'morality' in play?
PaulP567 4 months ago
Not sure on the first human but I can definately hope that Bachmann is the last monkey.
lanceawatt 4 months ago
Doe that mean every single addition to our DNA makes us a New Species o.o
forgottenmemories63 4 months ago
Geat explanation, even the most hardcore creationist should be able to grasp this..
daniellundqvist84 4 months ago
@PaulP567, I CERTAINLY don't claim to be an expert... just thought i'd let ya know, but in my opinion, I think it came about when humans first began using fire to their advantage. It allowed for more free time, i.e. not hunting or gathering, therefor more time to ponder abstract concepts. I think it allowed for a sense of "self", our place in the world & the concept of something "beyond" mortality. I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter, thanks. :)
screenpuller 4 months ago
@screenpuller
Humans probably used other tools efficiently but i its kinda ambiguous if you refer to one species as the one who utilized fire, their parents who gave birth to them weren't human?
Biology doesn't work that way. The definition of species is kinda strict, a population capable of interbreeding within themselves and capable of delivering fertile offpsring is a species.
I'ts like saying im not human because i don't use a pc.
Ryosuke1208 4 months ago
@Ryosuke1208 Homo sapiens has evolved in various simultaneous directions to give us the races we have today. The different races are collectively the same species by definition of their interbreedability. Not enough evolutionary time has elapsed to create separate species and/or determine which will survive and which will go extinct. It is likely, though, that Darwinian natural selection as we understand it has stopped and been superseded by social and otherwise 'artificial' selection.
PaulP567 4 months ago
@screenpuller The gradualness of the evolutionary process seems to be in conflict with the demonstrable ungradualness of humanity's all-conquering progress since around 30,000 years ago. Up until then the modus operandi of homo sapiens was comparable to that of his companion animals. And then suddenly there was a dramatic departure, the result of which in only 30,000 years is me typing this script and you reading it.. To the speculative mind something is not sitting quite right here. But what?
PaulP567 4 months ago
@screenpuller "Beyond mortality" has theological but not scientific meaning. It is interesting that while wilderbeest and pigeons, et al, are purely scientific in their dealings with the natural world, that is to say they stay firmly within the fields of evidence that surround them, we humans are keen to speculate on 'other worldly' fields of evidence. The really interesting question is what possesed the forces of evolution to send us down that route - figuratively speaking.
PaulP567 4 months ago
1:40 I have a homo-erection!
Coffeeisnecessary 4 months ago
@PaulP567... point taken, friend. I guess I really know what you meant, my bad. :) The BBC program IS seriously good, maybe you can find it online... double dvd, well worth it, i've watched it many times.
screenpuller 4 months ago
@screenpuller I located the BBC art program and it was excellent. I'm still curious, though, as to why food cooking, dead burying and cave painting all started at more or less the same time after thousands of years of being 'human'. The cave paintings seem to have had a religious or at least a transendental root. I wonder if it was coincidental with our consciousness being 'switched on' as it were. I can't help but feel that 'humanness' as we understand it had a definite and sudden begining.
PaulP567 4 months ago
It's just as Darwin wrote 150 years ago, "I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species." Once you understand the idea of Species being transmutable it's easy to see there never was a single 1st member of a species, with the whole process being gradual. But this doesn't mean that the term "species" is meaningless or that biological classification is impossible.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 4 months ago
speciation is a lie becuase we should also be observing kingdomation, phylumation, classation, orderation, familyation, and genusation, so evolution fails once again.
RespectMyHate 4 months ago
@RespectMyHate , huh???????????
gskowal 4 months ago
@gskowal take a biology class, then you might understand what I'm talking about
RespectMyHate 4 months ago
@RespectMyHate , You need to retake the class cause you slept through yours...
gskowal 4 months ago
@gskowal Yes biology is so easy I can sleep through it and still get an A.
RespectMyHate 4 months ago
@RespectMyHate , apparently you didn't learn anything cause you slept through it...
gskowal 4 months ago
@PaulP567, maybe not gradually over millions of years, but several thousand at least. There is a great program by the BBC called "How Art Made The World". It explains in fascinating detail, through much scientific study, how people first began creating art & it's purpose. Try to find it, it is VERY interesting. Oh, btw, people (humans) ARE animals... we are part of the animal kingdom. XD
screenpuller 4 months ago
@screenpuller Thanks for the BBC heads-up. I'll see if I can find the program. cave paintings seem to have appeared about 30,000 years ago in the beautiful forms we are all familiar with. There seems to be a 'fossil gap', as it were, previous to that.
Yes of course we are all animals, or mammals, or primates. We are all life-forms for that matter. I use the terms 'humanness' and 'animalness' to distinguish between characteristics of the two groupings which I don't think need explaining.
PaulP567 4 months ago
i don't want to live in a world where I wasn't the first human
jsamari 4 months ago
@jsamari Well the Sea of Tranquility wouldn't work for you either, but the Mare Erythraeum might. NASA is the go-to place, but don't bank on it. Good luck.
PaulP567 4 months ago
Did we gradually, i.e. over millions of years, start cooking our food, burying our dead, painting the walls of caves? How does one gradually cook one's food or gradually bury one's dead? Cave paintings seem pretty much to have appeared as we are used to seeing them. How did the art form gradually appear with the gradualness of humanity's development? It is these things which seem to characterise humanness as opposed to animalness.
PaulP567 4 months ago
@PaulP567 , wow ,you really are that dumb?
gskowal 4 months ago
THAT'S why I'm such a good swimmer??? LOL! ;0]
mrfoltz 4 months ago
so....many....trolling....arguments...
billymayer1000 4 months ago
i vaguely remember a video from another evolutionary biologist who presented indicators that speciation happens relatively quick, the new species is going to stay nearly the same for a very long time, before again dividing into others in massively shorter time span then it remained stable.
I'm not contradicting Dawkins here, the change is still gradual, but its not constant or evenly spread, but is happening in surges (surges=thousands of years)
unamaxify 4 months ago
it would be great if there was a way to actually see every one of these cards...every picture.... excellent explanation from dr dawkins.... it had me looking for a movie, a card flip...anything that may have a scientists/artist rendering of what my 900,000,000th granddad would have looked like...thumbs way up...
robthefirefly 4 months ago
As a population we are subtly different even from the human population of a few centuries back, though the differences would not be visible to the naked eye or universal to every individual: for example, the gene complexes allowing for the digestion of lactose are far more common now than they were in the Middle Ages. So yes, we are today subtly different from "early" humans (our descendants will doubtless consider 21st century humans "early" as well).
btmurtagh 4 months ago
Just like the Olympus Mons on Mars its such a huge mountain that if you stood on it you wouldnt even know it was a mountain.
dilwich123 4 months ago 2
So are we identical to early humans, or have we changed in subtle ways already?
0BatGirl0 4 months ago
@0BatGirl0 Every generation changes slightly, so no we are not identical. Can we breed with early humans - I guess so, else they wouldn't be classified as humans :)
daneimp 4 months ago
I 'm excited that Dawkins is back in the spotlight!
Daghead 4 months ago
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Looks like "The Magic of Reality" is aimed towards the scientifically illiterate. The previews show the elementary undergrad stuff, but I do hope it sells well. Our species needs more books like this on the shelves.
wojovox 4 months ago
I have no idea why people still resist the evolution. Our species is no old enough to have actually seen it occurring in the environment around us, and even in the human race itself. Its like saying the earth is flat.
But I'v never really got the mentality of people who troll so...
pathfinder756 4 months ago
So cool..
ApatheticOmniscience 4 months ago
Way too interesting :-)
theonlywayisgay 4 months ago
...so sad that people believe this crap :'/
DaUrbanMunky 4 months ago