Richard Dawkins Profile by BBC Part 1 of 3

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

Finding a video with Dawkins talking about his selfish gene theory on youtube is a bit like searching for a video on youtube of Noam Chomsky talking about his lingustic theory.

[originalmiller]

mirror neurons and empathy

[ERST105]

Brian Leith is a moron and shouldn't have had the honour of interviewing Dawkins.

[strangerlover11]

Darkin is stupid ignorant and made man.............what darwin said about his theory.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modificatons my theory would absolutely break down.Charles Darwin.......hahahhahahaa

[1empathy]

@strangerlover11 Read on my friend, "Yet reason tells me that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; (...) he refutes your assertion. It's in chapter 6 and all the intermediary eyes are well documented. some still extant others superior to the human eye (squid etc)

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

Anyone interested in the Selfish Gene & the gene centered view of evolution should look up W.D Hamilton and Hamilton's work.

[toumai1470]

nobel-prize for dawkins....

[JollSSteR]

HAHA, funny how he takes humans as an example of moral animals by ignoring all the wars and selfishness we are creating all the time.

sure some peoples have good morals because they know them selves, but i would'nt say that the majority would risk their lives for a stranger.

[tiptiptapable]

This video is stupid and so is the word selfish when discussing genes. Vegetarians are not alltruistic to just humans for example, they are alltruistic toward everything on the planet. To save the environment is another example - it's got nothing to do with Genes but with the mind wanting to save the planet so our planet can survive. Getting along nice with other people and animals is a way for the whole planet to survive. Nothing to do with genes.

[uggles2]

before you even earn the right to make that sort of claim, go read his book because you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about and are very confused. he explains everything you say is "stupid" because you are not capable enough of using rational thinking. this man is brilliant, and you are extremely incorrect. you think that our behavior has nothing to do with our genes? how do you think we are capable of feeling? god said so? it is written in every single cell of your body how to

[tiptiptapable]

an alligator could care less about anything but his next meal and sleeping spot. humans have minds that are different and capable of not being selfish, but rather alltruistic.

[johnthekeane]

And what about the great care that alligators take of their young?

[tiptiptapable]

And what about the great care that drug addicts take care of their mary jane joints?

[johnthekeane]

I don't really see the connection here.

By the way I don't believe Dawkins ever said that genes make an animal selfish.Also,the book "The selfish gene" was not written as a scientific paper,but for a general readership...this demands a more accessible style...and for the record, an atomic bomb is not a chemical.

I repeat; Stop being silly and start thinking.

[tiptiptapable]

"an atomic bomb is not a chemical."

You're an idiot.

[johnthekeane]

Don't think so, pal.

Tell you what, though, you seem to be one of those people who argue for the sake of it.

Boring...and goodbye.

[tiptiptapable]

A common example of a chemical substance is pure water. If you think there are no chemicals in a bomb, you are an idiot. I have to call out your stupidity, I'm sorry. I'm not nice. You'll have to deal with it.

[tiptiptapable]

also you ignorant fucktard, you'd be best not talking about "God" to someone like me, and you'd best look at someone's profile before making naive assumptions. Another problem with humans is they make predictions and assumptions that are often false. Those humans with further developed brains aren't that dense and stupid.

[uggles2]

i honestly dont give a shit to take the time to stalk you and stare at ur profile all day and thats kind of weird that you probably did that to me. go read his book, stop crying, and then get back to me

[tiptiptapable]

Uggles2, I'm way ahead of you, moron. You fail to listen to what I say. What I say is an improvement on Dawkins nonsensical poetic expression that there is a selfish gene. That's a meaningless phrase. First, genes are genes. They do not have human qualities. They are genes. They are chemicals. There is nothing selfish about them. An atomic bomb is not selfish. It's just a chemical. This selfish gene expression is poetic garbage and is anti scientific. Genes do not make an animal selfish.

[uggles2]

ok. you are an idiot. i would like to remind you, incase you forgot, that you have not read his book and therefore are basing ur statements off of geusses which happen to be inaccurate. the book is not about a gene for selfish behaviour dumbass, its about evolution from a gene's perspective and he basically says FIGURATIVELY that genes are selfish and want their designated survival machines to survive so the genes can be replicated and survive. and he explains this through animal behaviour

[tiptiptapable]

"its about evolution from a gene's perspective "

A gene has no "perspective". You, and dawkins are making the common mistake of Anthropomorphism. Look it up. It's a common mistake for a subject that is novel. Read Dijskstra

"want their designated "

Genes DO NOT have "wants". Genes are not humans or animals. Once again this poetic garbage of yours and dawkins is anti scientific. This book is written for emotional poetic touchy feely people like yourself. Anthropomorphism mistake again.

[uggles2]

YOUR AN IDIOT. holy shit you dont udnerstand want FIGURATIVELY means. of course genes arent concious you dumbass. most of the species on this planet arent even concious! i cant even get over how fucking stupid you are. READ HIS BOOK. you actually think that a piece of dna has a mind of its own? what the hell is wrong with you? genes that improve the survival and reproduction of their bodies will spread thoughout a population and those genes will be favored in nature.

[tiptiptapable]

The only person that's an idiot is you. You don't even use proper english... can't even spell "you're" properly in caps lock. The fact that "survivors survive" is a tautology. Tell us something we don't know. Surviving has nothing to do with genes being "selfish". Animals with minds are selfish. Using figurative poetic expressions belongs no where in science. It's the same as people who think computers have minds and think. Look up Dijkstra on the dangers of Anthropomorphism.

[cayetanoluis]

No shit. Of course gene's don't have a perspective in the literal sense. Dawkins has said clearly and repeatedly that the utility of the selfish gene point of view is that tit gives US another way of seeing evolution and animal behaviour because it frames things AS THOUGH genes had interests. It's a metaphor, and a useful one. Have you even read The Selfish Gene?

[uggles2]

regardless of selfish behaviour of the animal or not. in fact, most of his cases explain altruism. the fact that there is a 3/1 ratio of females to males in social insect colonies because sisters are more closely related to brother and therefore forcefully induce more females to spread into adulthood to spread their genes. or how bats from different parts of the world were broguht together in one enviroment, and bats would only aid other bats from their same location of origin because

[tiptiptapable]

"most of his cases explain altruism"

Yeah, so a vegetarian that doesn't kill animals, is altruistic because of his genes. Not because of the conscious choice. Bull shit.

[cayetanoluis]

"Yeah, so a vegetarian that doesn't kill animals, is altruistic because of his genes"

That's an almost comical misunderstanding of the selfish gene idea. Dawkins didn't say anything remotely like this.

[tiptiptapable]

"That's an almost comical misunderstanding of the selfish gene idea"

Apparently you fail to understand sarcasm. A human out there who loves animals (and not his own species.. there are many people out there who love animals more than humans) is alltrusitic toward the world in general, not his own genes. This is something that is in the mind, explain this through DNA/Genes please and why someone would love animals if they don't carry those animals genes.

[cayetanoluis]

The answer is that the brains that were shaped by Darwinian evolution can be coopted in the service of imperatives beyond the dictates of selfish genes. That's what makes us special. Our brains allow us to create meaning that goes beyond the requirements of mere reproduction.

[uggles2]

they share more genes in common and therefore help each other survive in order to pass them down. there are dozens of other examples that he gives, so you actually have nothing to say against me because you're too much of a dumbass to listen to an intellectual and base your assumptions of your own wild ideas which dont even make any sense since your too naive and actually believe that dawkins believes that a gene is a concious entity. and he clearly states, it is not many times, if you had

[tiptiptapable]

"they share more genes in common and therefore help each other survive in order to pass them down."

Animals have the ability to replicate chemically, whereas being "selfish" requires the following: "Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self"

The definition of selfish requires one has a brain and thought, and knowledge of self. Genes are not selfish. Genes do not think or have feelings. They are just chemicals that happen to replicate. Genes do not have brains.

[cayetanoluis]

"Gene are not selfish"

They are in the sense that Dawkins explained it: that they (or more accurately, their alleles) are selfish in the sense that they are propagated at the expense of their rivals when they have phenotypic effects that aid in that replication. They can be thought of as having intentions, but of course this is meant only as a short-hand; as he himself says, we can always translate back into respectable "gene language" what's actually going on (though that's more long-winded).

[tiptiptapable]

"They are in the sense that Dawkins explained it"

If I told you that computer electrons are "sexy" and I redefined the word sexy to be "electrons dance in the computer chip" you'd agree with this amateur anthropomorphism and follow it like a blind sheep. Please read an article by Dijkstra called "E.W. Dijkstra Archive: On anthropomorphism in science"

[cayetanoluis]

Please read The Selfish Gene. To repeat, "selfish" is being used as a metaphor; you're the one obsessing over literal meanings.

[uggles2]

read his book. so unless you can disprove facts, which im pretty damn sure you cant, shut the fuck up. and an atomic bomb has nothing to do with anything and i doubt you even know the science behind that so dont even bother bringing it up

[tiptiptapable]

An atomic bomb is an example of something we could consider SELFISH when it goes off and blows things up. The only problem is, SELFISH is a human characteristic, or a living characteristic of animals and humans. It's a word that is abstract and is complex. It has nothing to do with genes or bombs. It would be like calling the ELECTRONS in your computer "playful and sexy". Dawkins is using stupid poetic terminology to describe a complex subject. Genes are not SELFISH. Selfish is not chemical.

[tiptiptapable]

This what you are acting like Uggles2: "read is book, be a blind sheep, shut up and don't cricize anything dawkins says because he is human and does not make mistakes, he is God, don't disagree with anything he says"

You're argument from authority is extremely annoying. You're religious about him. If you are not open minded enough to criticize a scientist (in fact Dawkins is more of a novel writer than a scientist) then YOU are not scientific an you are against critical thought.

[uggles2]

hahah ok i think we both know how to spell "you're" and i at least thought u knew that this is the internet, not a formal letter and i honestly dont give a shit about spelling and i dont think ur that stupid enough to not understand wat "ur" means. i definitely dont remember calling you a sheep but u can go along with that if you want. your being ridiculously closed minded, you think that because i dont disagree with everything ever stated on earth im "not scientific"

[uggles2]

you dont make any sense, becuase im completely disagreeing with you right now. of course theres things i disagree with u dumbass. i dont agree with individual selection or group selection. why? because a man has come up with a 300 page explanation why and geuss what. it makes complete sense. i even gave you facts, which you actually completely ignored because you know im disproving you and for some reason your argument is that figurative language is not for scientists.

[uggles2]

im going to be completely honest, that does not make one bit of sense. i think you refer to urself as a grand scientists however you have trouble understanding deeper concepts that you have been taught against. and the fact is, you shouldnt even be arguing right now because you have not read his book. you are giving a compltely blind opnion over something which you know nothing about. it seems like your already drawing a conclusion before you make an observation. not very scientific of you :(

[tiptiptapable]

uggles2, who's coming to false conclusions now? you are. You have made false assumptions that I haven't read his book. You are already drawing a conclusion before you have any proof. Not very scientific of you.

[cayetanoluis]

"You have made false assumptions that I haven't read his book"

It seems to me that those assumptions were founded, because it's hard to imagine that anyone who's read Dawkins' book could accuse him of the sorts of crude misunderstandings that unfortunately you've succumbed to.

[tiptiptapable]

"it's hard to imagine that anyone who's read Dawkins' book could accuse him"

It seems quite odd to me for someone with a scientific critical mind to follow a book like a blind sheep without questioning it word for word

[cayetanoluis]

"follow a book like a blind sheep"

Only if you think that it's me who's misunderstood Dawkins. But then, I understand what he actually meant. You still seem to get hung up on literal meanings.

[tiptiptapable]

Cayetanoluis, your comment on brains going beyond simple reproduction is what I have been saying all along. It's a shame you didn't get it sooner. You think it is just human brains and that magically all other species with brains are excepted. That's not the case.

Humans even have vets for animals that screw up "selfish" nonsensical evolution. It's not selfish at all when you have a vet working on a owl which is not the same species. Please tell me where a vet got unselfish genes.

[cayetanoluis]

The vet didn't get unselfish genes; he got unselfish ideas, which our brains can produce as a side-consequence of having evolved to be large and sophisticated enough to perform their original, utilitarian (or sexually selected) purpose. There is no reason why genes should reign supreme when it comes to humans; culture has at least as much of an effect in the outcome of our dealings with each other and with other species.

[tiptiptapable]

"Only if you think that it's me who's misunderstood Dawkins. "

I did not misunderstand him. I understood him perfectly. You can understand someone even if they are incorrect and misleading. Understood?

What would be misleading is to say that my desk is selfish because if you put too much stuff on it it just throws it off the table rudely. I suggest reading dijkstra again.

Have you ever criticised dawkins? Have you ever said ANYTHING negative about his research? or is it all positive?

[cayetanoluis]

Your desk throwing stuff off might be construed as "selfish", but not in a sense that's very interesting. What makes the selfish gene theory interesting is that it involves entities that affect their own prospects of being propagated. They BEHAVE as though they were selfish, because they can be said to "compete" for chromosome space.

"Have you ever criticised Dawkins?"

Yes.

[johnthekeane]

Oh,stop being silly and start thinking.

[BigPurple121]

Dawkins makes me want to move to England

[anetchi]

Brains are hot, Richard Dawkins is bloody gorgeous!!!

[billfred51]

HA quote of the month! love it

[joeycaswellrocinante]

no worries for the quality ;) thanks for the upload!

[analyticSynthetic]

Why do they only show this kind of stuff on BBC World and pump out mainstream crap on BBC1?

[Jamiesmusicmachine]

hmm i just think bbc1 is an entertainment channel, whilst bbc world is more based on this sorta thing, that what the mainstream might not like

x

[bonangusacdc]

Richard Dawkins is the greatest man alive.

[AtheistPride007]

I'm sorry, but you can't give him that honour. Dawkins is a very intellegent person, but he hasn't done anything great. Sorry, but anyone can prove that religon is idiotic.

[ssnatcherss]

well said, atheistpride. but he's done more to fight the wrongs of religion than anyone i can think of. and that's one of the greater struggles of our time, so i see where bonangusadc is comming from

[bonangusacdc]

Well, I think The God Delusion is great. The reason I made that statement is because it is Dawkins who is doing most, or at least trying, to wake the world up. However, Harris and Hitchens are also major players.

[TRUEAMERICAN11]

you sure are apologetic for being so proud, sorry to say so.

sorry for not capitalizing my first letters.

sorry.

[LowleyUK]

@AtheistPride007 thats not all he has done....go onto his wikipedia page

[llHyRaXll]

@AtheistPride007 yeah but richard dawkins is the leader of people who fight religion so he is great and your just a loser

[imbapenguin]

@AtheistPride007 false, then tell me who is better science-thinking spreader nowadays... no one, he prove that religion is idiotic but he is active at that, and you probably dont give a s8888 aboit it too much...

[DawgTycoon]

@AtheistPride007 bonan can give him any honor he/she wants, its an opinion

[pontaven12]

@AtheistPride007 Agree with you on superstition but lets not forget his work in biology as in the Selfish Gene

[hinatah89]

@AtheistPride007 At least he doesn´t try to be politically correct like so many others.

[MochizMuM]

@AtheistPride007 Yet with that said, am I going to be able to read your book on the subject?

[Fetzi18]

@AtheistPride007 hahhaahahah shut it idiot

[MJFAN666]

@AtheistPride007 loll, good point, but the good thing about this guy is that he gives a tireless fuck about science and science education to children and that puts him near the top. He is a gentleman and not a barbarian and that brings him even closer to the top. He is up there man, and people will remember him forever for that he did.

[adtnu]

u r right

[7Row7enn7]

I think Dawkins is a very intelligent man, and a great writer at that. His ideas are ingeneous and revolutionary to much an extent.... though I still must say there are other people in this world who hold more highly.

[lb10128]

like who

[waltermh111]

the right question isnt who, the right question is, who in the field Dawkins is in?

Has Sam Harris or Hitchens done more to fight religion?

Dawkins has been doing so for over 20 years.

I dont think it discounts their work to say that he has done more.

He has also been promoting science to children and adults alike for longer.

youtube (.) com/watch?

v=jHoxZF3ZgTo&feature=PlayList­&p=ED4BA3683D0273ED&index=0&pl­aynext=1

[waltermh111]

Sure, others may have done more highly, but hes definitely up their with the great ones in promoting atheism and science. I think most people here dont even know just how much work he has done beside his books.

His speeches, many many debates, documentaries on many areas of science, books, and he does it all with wit and sometimes humor, and speaks in a way that makes him interesting to listen to.

I for one am never bored of listening to him. He speaks well all around.

[lb10128]

He is doing more to end humanities genocidal addiction to faith and superstition than anyone. What King and Ghandi did was great for their communities but should religion ever fall and we all get to the next great enlightenment. Imagine the end of terrorism, religious bigotry, Lighting the spark of science and curing the world ills as a unified human effort. Not many people were willing to stick there chin out Dawkins did and he is a great man period.

[LowleyUK]

@bonangusacdc he is certainly up there with the best

[MrMarkBartlett]

@bonangusacdc Quite!!

[ZarlanTheGreen]

"Today I am going to find out, if he really does have horns" XD

[daverbecks]

Stupid interviewer.

[cant1be1original]

first comment!!