The blind watchmaker - 5/5

[ilovelani69]

My god, how short could those shorts have been?

[thetearlady]

for all these intelligence is required in addition to survival instinct. Whose intelligence selected, found the optimal solution or solved the survival problems? (as they did not had at hand a computer program to do it for them...:))) Chaos and randomness can not be organized so intelligent (contradiction in terms!) to do cumulative selections or solve problems.

[thetearlady]

interactions of chemical elements that are WILLING to live AND not by themselves but by their descendants? And this WISH to live of (!!!) some rudimentary, unintelligent forms of life was so strong and perseverent that it printed in the ADN the instinct of survival? I am sorry, but this does ask lots of faith in a reasonable man to accept it. 2. the"cumulative selection"; "optimal solution" , "solving survival problems" are essential in explaining the evolution theory, but all these require

[thetearlady]

I am not a scientist, but the evolution theory seems defective to me. Why?The evolution theory is built on something that it can not explain:1. the survival instinct. Where did this instinct come from?No number of material elements' combinations and their concidences can not produce something so non-material as the instinct of survival. This could occur after life already appeared and it created the will to live and survive. Where, how did life appear in the first, rudimentary forms of life?

[gadge6901]

@thetearlady The survival instinct comes from self replicating genes. To believe that these instincts are anything but genetic traits are flawed. The organisms (bacteria, archea for example) which do not have a survival instinct, do not survive. We are here because human genes were passed down through thousands of generations, the ones who did not evolve in a positive fashion died long ago. That is why we are the species we see today. Read 'The Selfish Gene' By the fantastic Richard Dawkins.

[Klayhamn]

Wrong. It can take hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years or more for adaptive changes to become fixated in animal populations. It depends on many factors. Unsuccessful adaptations are "weeded out" by natural selection since they decrease the organism's reproduction rate compared to his "normal" neighbors. In 100 years we did see many new examples of evolution: the two I mentioned (nylon-eating, e.coli) as well as bacteria evolving to be immune to antibiotics. This is evolution.

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

Thanks for uploading this, I really enjoyed watching it.

[joshualcoombe]

This video series does nothing to provide any information on biogenesis... so "simple" single cell organisms were created by chance? From dust or mud? Kind of like a blind watchmaker?

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe Evolution theory does not explain the beginning of life - that's for chemistry to explain. Evolution only deals with what occurs once life exists, namely: what processes take place, and in what way do these contribute to the diverse and complex nature we witness today. It demonstrates - successfully - that complexity can emerge from simple beginnings - through gradual and accumulative change. Snowflakes are formed out of water droplets. Galaxies are formed out of cosmic dust.

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn The term "Blind watch maker" is a reference to abiogenesis. If you think evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with each other I'll agree with you, Richard Dawkins, it seems, would not.

Living organisms NEVER become more complex than their parents. They ALWAYS become less complex. Can anyone provide an example to disprove this statement?

Please tell me how evolution demonstrates (successfully) that complex organisms can emerge from simple ones. Do you have any actual proof?

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe Well, certainly I can demonstrate it - but not here on youtube, this is not a proper medium for scientific explanation. Anyway, the problem is that there is no sensible definition for the term "complex" to begin with. We can talk about the size of the genome but that isn't really a good standard, since there are "primitive" creatures with more genes than us. In other words, I can show you change and adaptation - the "complexity" part is more of an aesthetic interpretation.

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn I would think the size of the genome is an excellent measure of biological complexity. For arguments sake let me rephrase my question: Please tell me how evolution demonstrates (successfully) that organisms with larger genomes emerge from organisms with smaller genomes. An example would be required since this is the basis of all evolutionary theory.

When evolution has more evidence that creationism I'll convert, would you consider a similar resolve?

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe then you would be wrong in thinking so, since like I said, some extremely "primitive" creatures like worms or amoebas sometimes have genomes several times larger than ours. Nevertheless, it is true that gene-duplication and diversification is one of the central mechanisms by which novel features and mechanisms are formed in living organisms. I would not consider a "similar resolve" since creationism is unfalsifiable psesudo-science. Lack of knowledge isn't evidence for anything.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe and if my answer wasn't clear: gene duplication is probably the answer you are looking for. It happens all the time, on small scales (single gene or even half-a-gene) and sometimes large (whole-genome duplications, as seen in wheat for instance). Gene duplication allows a "sandbox" for non-lethal mutations, by which, through thousands or millions of years, novel features and mechanisms can arise. This of course is not the ONLY means by which evolution progresses, just one of them.

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn Allow a slight correction: I would think the size of a non-redundant genome would be an excellent measure of biological complexity.

Genetic diversification only happen in reproduction where genetic possibilities are passed down from ancestors. What I'm talking about is NEW genetic material.

Surely evolution is just as much pseudo-science as creationism. There is "proofs" on both sides sometimes even given the same information.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe And again, you would be thinking wrong. I repeat for the 3rd time: there are genomes several orders greater than ours (non-redundant) which do not result in anything that common sense would lead you to call "complexity".

Genetic diversification does not only happen through reproduction and reshuffling of genes, but also due to mutations. Like I said - "new" genetic information is often a result of duplication followed by mutation and change.

Surely, evolution is fact.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe and allow me to quote: "The C-value enigma or C-value paradox is a term used to describe the complex puzzle surrounding the extensive variation in nuclear genome size among eukaryotic species. At the center of the C-value enigma is the observation that genome size does not correlate with organismal complexity; for example, some single-celled protists have genomes much larger than that of humans." You are of course welcome to read further on the subject.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe and a small clarification on the question of creationism: first, it has none of what you call "proofs" (you must be referring to "evidence"). The whole theory is based on gaps of knowledge, rather than positive evidence (hence: "God of the Gaps"). What we don't know or can't yet explain does not constitute evidence for anything, let alone a proposition like that of an "intelligent designer" for whose existence, like I said, we have no independent evidence. AND -It's unfalsifiable.

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn That you have no evidence for God is probably because you haven't looked for it. I've seen people miraculously healed and have friends who have seen people rise from the dead... I suppose that isn't evidence enough for you.

Yet when I ask you to provide an "actual" example of mutation increasing the size of a genome with new information what answer can you give me? Let me guess, it's something like this, "We know it happens because the genomes must have come from somewhere..."

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe the mere mentioning of these supposed incidents in of itself is not evidence. For it to be considered as evidence, you must submit objectively testable items or pieces of information which can be verified by an unbiased observer. Moreover, miraculous incidents by themselves are not evidence for god, but only for "spontaneous healing" or "death recovery" alone. To prove the existence of God you would need more extraordinary and substantial evidence than these personal anecdotes.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe the only reason you have to "guess" what evidence is there for new information emerging (over time) from the combination of random mutations with the process of natural selection - is that you haven't bothered to even look. The only reason you believe in "god" and consider creationism to be true is that you find it more comforting to think there is an invisible "daddy" who cares for you out there in this vast soulless universe. Fear of death is also a contributing factor.

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn By your logic, if I saw one animal spontaneously evolve into a new creature that wouldn't prove evolution only that that animal can spontaneously evolve into another creature... logic fail.

But as always, I asked for evidence for evolution and you danced around the topic with the standard personal attack... whenever you have an answer, feel free to post again...

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe Yes, indeed, if you saw one animal "spontaneously evolve" into "another animal" that would not prove the theory of evolution because that isn't what it describes or predicts. The theory of evolution describes gradual change over time through small numerous almost indistinguishable steps in an accumulative fashion. The distinction between "one kind of animal" and another is artificial and done by us. The transition is gradual and almost unnoticeable, like a baby growing into adult

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn But neither of these examples show mutation. They show bio-diversity and natural selection leads to organisms with specific traits. They don't show new traits arising. So ... still waiting...

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe Both of these examples show mutation. In both cases the genetic code of the bacteria has been changed to allow the emergence of these new mechanisms. "bio-diversity" is a meaningless term you throw into the air without having a shred of understanding in the underlying biology of the issue. Digesting nylon is, by all standards, a new trait. Or perhaps you have a naive view which expects fish to turn into doves? Define to me what you think constitutes a "new trait"? Laser beams?

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn A new trait would be a genetic possibility that wasn't present in the ancestors. Human example: red hair is not a new trait but green hair is. Again, in humans two arms = normal, four arms = new trait. Eyes = normal, lasers = new trait... :D

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe Again, your understanding of biology is shallow and simplistic. The scientific definition of new traits is not what seems "strange" to you or any other person, but simply the existence of new proteins, new bio-molecular processes or developmental changes. New limbs don't "spontaneously appear", they do so gradually. Ancient "worm" -> ancient "eel" -> ancient fin-less fish -> ancient fish with small "protrusions" -> ancient fish with fins -> amphibian -> lizard.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe Could you describe to me the difference between a horse and zebra? what "different traits" does the horse have which the zebra doesn't? What makes them different species? What "traits" distinguish foxes from wolves? Are poodles and rottweilers separate species? You have a "romantic" naive view of what new traits are. Animals evolve through gradual and ever-so-slight modifications, not through spontaneous bursts of "novel patents". A chimpanzee differs from us genetically by 2%.

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn Zebras have stipes - that would be a new trait but since horses and zebras can breed I'd say they have more similarities than differences.

Foxes don't hunt in packs, are smaller and have bushier tails.

Poodles and rottweilers are both dogs.

I thought "new trait" is a fairly simplistic view, I thought you'd understand it.

Worms don't have eyes - that's a massive new trait!

Bones- there's another

Small "protrusions" are a noticable new trait.

Legs - new trait.

breathing air - new trait.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe When bacteria become immune to antibiotics it happens exactly because huge amounts of them die, but *sometimes* just enough of them survive to be able to develop a beneficial mutation in time which decreases the effectiveness of the antibiotic. With time, multiple mutations such as this would be "selected for" by natural selection given that enough "evolutionary pressure" is exerted (enough near-extinction incidents).

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe You said that "stripes" are a new trait, right - which make zebras and horses two distinct species. However, dalmatians are white and have black spots, and Labradors are golden and furry. They can also breed (like zebras and horses - as you mentioned). So why aren't they two different species? "just 'cause you say they aren't?" I asked for a definition and you gave me examples. Do you need me to define the word "definition" for you?

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe quoting from Wikipedia (just so you see that you deny all of science): The emergence of antibiotic resistance is an evolutionary process that is based on selection for organisms that have enhanced ability to survive doses of antibiotics that would have previously been lethal... The underlying molecular mechanisms leading to antibiotic resistance can vary... Acquired resistance results from a mutation in the bacterial chromosome or the acquisition of extra-chromosomal DNA.

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn By the evolutionary tree details massive changes between species. Surely for every "successful" adaptation there would be 1000s of unsuccessful ones. New adaptations must be happening at every generation if they are as small as you say. So surely in the 100+ years of evolution's acceptance many million examples would have been noted.

If you look at an actual (verified) family tree you'll notice a lose of traits. Example at one stage it was common for inbreeding. Now we see deformation

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe this is precisely why you are ALWAYS required to keep taking antibiotics until 99.9% of the bacteria are dead. Otherwise, surviving bacteria MIGHT have already acquired (through mutation) immunity and can spread out and pose real danger to humans. Regarding family trees - if you sample the genetic code of an entire family 10 generations back, and then (blindly) try to re-construct a tree solely based on that information, it would be the RIGHT one.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe this is because of how changes and similarities are naturally spread out throughout families. The fact we find exactly the same kind of hierarchical grouping patterns in the genes of all living organisms, is a strong evidence for the fact of evolution. You are welcome to try and provide alternative explanations for the fact that for any random 1000 organisms you pick, comparing their genomes would inevitably lead you to a hierarchical tree of similarities and differences.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe regarding the evolution from "worm-like" creatures to lizards -- you do realize it took over a billion years for all these changes to accumulate? I'm trying to explain to you - I am talking about barely noticeable modifications from generation to generation. Only in RETROSPECT can you look back at two samples (fossils say) separated by several million years and say: "Ah, here's a big change!" Just like comparing day-to-day photos of humans won't reveal their growth & development.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe These gradual changes are supported not only by the transitional fossils we find in paleontological research, but also by the phylogenetic tree which is singular and shows the hierarchical dispersion of similarities and differences across all living organisms. It didn't "have" to be like that, but the fact that it is - is profound evidence in support of evolution. The same kind of trees can be witnessed to form today in genetic research of human genealogies and populations.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe Also "genetic possibility" is an unscientific term which means nothing. It would be like saying a "galactic potential" or "molecular chance". You have to specify precisely and scientifically what sort of genetic change you would consider a "new trait". New traits can only be identified in retrospect. During the actual course of evolution, the modifications are almost undetectable. Did you ever witness a baby turn into a bearded adult? Could you locate the point of transition?

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe The answer is that we have seen plenty of examples of new information emerging from random mutations. One of them is the 20-year experiment conducted by Richard Lenski in which the E. Coli bacteria has been witnessed to adapt to its environment and develop the ability to grow on citric acid rather than glucose. Another charming example is that of the nylon-eating bacteria (a strain of Flavobacterium). Nylon, as you know, is man-made and does not occur in nature, which means "new".

[joshualcoombe]

@Klayhamn Alright! An answer... not exactly what I was looking for, but I'll work with it. First the E. Coli: The question needs to be posed, did the e. coli have the ability to acquire sustenance from both types of food, example humans eat both fruit and meat.

And now the bacteria: What's Nylon made from? Plastics which are made from oil which comes from bio decay... so what your telling me is bacteria can feed on processed bio decay. That's a massive step from unprocessed bio decay...

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe No it did not, the E. Coli had the means of digesting citrate in environments without oxygen, but to do that in environments with oxygen required a new enzyme capable of transporting the citrate through the cell membrane into the cell interior.

[Klayhamn]

@joshualcoombe You talk about biology and digestion in a simplistic manner which exposes your ignorance on the subject. Try to eat nylon, see if it works for you. Your body cannot digest this substance, and neither can other organism, except for that particular bacteria. To do that you would need a kind of enzyme which did not exist on earth prior to the invention of nylon. It was discovered in bacteria living in ponds containing waste from a nearby nylon factory.

[f4q1r]

new Pseudocode needed!!! LOL

[jolarti]

That poor robot is now obsolete, I wish to adopt it.

[SGde3a]

I'm a programmer its a bit hard to make a computer program evolve itself because it would need to rewrite its own code and theres nothing available afaik to do that. If it didn't scrap and rewrite code (replace it) instead of going down a new path in an IF statement it would have a dozen different ways to do something and all of them outdated.

[TheRationalizer]

@SGde3a Reflection.Emit!

[theprokrastinator]

lol the scene where he's sitting on the rock, i wonder what we'd see if the camera moved slightly to the right.. bwahaha.. oh.. ew

[MMACH5]

It's a shame natural selection is subverted in the human population. By now all the dumbasses who deny evolution should have died off.

[joshualcoombe]

@MMACH5 Ironically its natural selection that breeds out those who believe evolution... HA ha ha ha ha ha

[petestrat07]

That was an amazing doco. Thx for sharing.

I've only discovered Richard this year and he made such an impact on the way I now see this world.

He is an inspiration.

[grai]

this was 1987 imagine what they are doing with computers now

Dawkins is such an inspiration

thanks for sharing

[sulthus]

he said

"and dionasuras never would have exzisted" as if that were more important than anything else in this program

i think this was not only educational but also funny

[Uberhilarious]

Wow dawkins is SOOO young in this vid.

[youtoobsuxballz]

Ehhh....didn't mean to rate this one start. My finger slipped. Supposed to be 5. Ah well....

[Tripp393]

I feel sorry for the robot =(

[metquawhocares]

he must be an excellent teacher in school. why aren't good things like these not often shown on tv?

[xpredox]

because of the reality shows, my friend...

[dreamworkvelvet]

That's what i call evolution, and the worst is that WE are natural selection for this kind of crap.

[top2d2]

lol

[Dorfkanal]

Thanks for uploading this classic.

[hackenbollox]

Good stuff. The books are even better.

[mtegelaar]

beautiful

[powergoods]

I just wish Richard Dawkins was less arrogant and more tactful in his presentation of natural selection to the public. He would convince alot more people this way.

[Pythybaby]

yeah i agree... like he's right but he doesn't need to be so aggressive about it....

[MetalguitarlessonsUK]

I think he does as the huge support for teaching creationism in America shows, 51% of Americans do not believe in evolution...that is a devastating blow to the very foundations of education, thus I think he does need to be extremely forward about this.

[jappud]

@MetalguitarlessonsUK Its more than that, in The Greatest show on earth, Dawkins mentions a gallop poll that showed about 40% of Americans believe in creation.

[atheistsstrikeback]

This movie should be shown in every biology class in school. There isn't a better way to explain evolution. Great movie ;)

[sicklesun]

thanks! i read about this on the rd sight but hadn't seen it. very good and still relevant today (although the shorts aren't quite so relevant!)

[justinkrz1992]

Thank you very much for posting this series of videos.

[LewisPearson]

excellent video, thanks for posting :)

[superfisto]

Thanks again for posting this.

It's timeless, like Sagan's Cosmos.

[DelusionOrReality]

Good video thankyou

Clear evidence from Mr Dawkins as usual..

[revtyson]

Thank you :)

[TheJolly8Baller]

Thanks for posting these videos.