BBC/OU Annual Lecture 2009: Dawkins on Darwin (Part 2 of 5)

Professor Richard Dawkins delivered this year's Open University lecture at the Natural History Museum on Tuesday 17th March 2009. Dawkins presented to an invited audience and investigated if Darwin was the most revolutionary scientist ever, and examined the evolutionary theories of his contemporaries.

Dawkins suggests that there are four "bridges to evolutionary understanding" and illustrates this with four claimants to the evolution of natural selection: Edward Blyth, Patrick Matthew, Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin. The fifth bridge of evolutionary understanding is identified as modern genetics which he terms digital Darwinism.

via http://RichardDawkins.net

http://www.AtheistMedia.com

-

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• richard
• dawkins
• charles
• darwin
• bbc
• open
• university
• lecture
• science
• evolution
• religion
• atheist
• atheism

[MishaVargas]

I didn't even know about Patrick Matthew. It's quite interesting.

[killerbandit]

I would imagine that the concept of evolution had be something that had crossed thousands of minds before. The trick is always putting al the tiny epiphanies together.

[Keeban3]

Wells understanding may even be more important than Darwin's. I mean, groups go in and out of existence easily, especially when selection applies to people. Tribes go into and out of existence as groups almost solely. I mean, sure individual selection is involved as well, but I suspect that it is not nearly as important.

[hilbert54]

I have read all the comments on this page. Perhaps you are responding to a different video.

I was simply answering your direct question, as you requested.

The reason laws are assumed to be constant is because there is as yet no reason to assume they are not. When a law is found to not be constant then it will be redefined.

Have you discovered some information that eludes the scientific community, if so then I suggest you let them know.

[duubamg]

You havent read the previous comments. The subject was philosophy of science.

[hilbert54]

I am having trouble understanding the relevance of your comments to this video and I see no abstraction there. This is about who gets credit for the idea of natural selection.

We know the sun won't always appear to rise each day, because the sun will not always exist. What has that got to do with this video. Perhaps it is an analogy, but still it does not appear to be relevant.

What is your point exactly?

[duubamg]

I presume I have overestimated your capacity of abstraction.

[hilbert54]

Strictly he sun won't rise tomorrow, but unless the sun suddenly evaporates or explodes and as long as the earth continues to rotate on it's axis without significantly slowing down the sun will appear to rise.

If the sun evaporates or explodes or the earth stops spinning we won't care.

[duubamg]

No. Its Just beyond your limited comprehension. Why dont you take some philosophy lessons yourself? Doing so, maybe, youll be able to make a less unfortunate comment.

[boysdontcry17]

you understanding of the concepts of this lecture is less than rudimentary, please finish high school soon.