The Genius of Charles Darwin 1-1 (v.o.s.e.)

Primera parte del primer capítulo del documental de Richard Dawkins sobre Charles Darwin. Con subtítulos en español.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• dawkins
• darwin
• biologia
• documental
• bbc

[enott93]

its frustrating and disheartening how people abandon rational thought for the 'blissful' ignorance of religion.

[GodoftheGeeks]

No transitional fossils? Are you kidding me? Go to a paleontologist and say that.

[maxsalasr]

why the evolution happened?

thats the real question

to me it didnt even happened, this teory its actually falling into pieces, because coincidences are too many, making it mathematically unprobable to be the way this sir says.

[bravasobob]

*

The documentals of Carl Sagan are much better than R. Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins tries to convince us to believe in his BELIEFS, once angain BELIEFS.

It's very irrational to mix Religion and Science and We can understand that Dawkins is making foolish remarks.

~

Does he want to sell more videos, sell more books? it's very possible, since he has not any chance as a scientific.

~

It's very stupid to use the science in order to support Atheisms BELIEFS.

*

[Mr88playmaker]

DNA code is empirical proof that biological life forms are a creative product of information and language. i.e.: Nous / Logos (Einstein called this: "The MIND of GOD").

Darwin had it all wrong and now atheists need a new theory for origins.

[Veganomante]

Aunque eso no tiene nada que ver con lo anterior.

[redeyeswyvern]

Siempre me ha causado gracia que Richard Dawkins pueda usar libremente la palabra "egoísta" en sus libros, pero si Wilson usa la palabra "altruísmo" o Margulis empieza a hablar de simbiosis de inmediato se suben las cejas. ¿No será el problema "científico" más un problema "linguistico"?

[Veganomante]

Why the heck are you responding in English, yizas! They guy was commenting in Spanish, dude. You've got to stop reading in English for a while, haha.

Pero si te interesa Multimaestro, lee The End of Faith de Sam Harris para entender por qué la ciencia y la religión (o creencias locas sin evidencia en general) son incompatibles en un mundo moderno como el de hoy.

Saludos

[Veganomante]

Because for Wilson's Multi-level selection idea to be of any appeal he'd have to develop a strong theoretical model first, which, in the eyes of many, he hasn't. And, since Wilson's idea is the only "new" and "less implausible" account of 'group selection', nobody picks up Gould's claims, except, perhaps, very few scientists, such as Dunbar.

Nevertheless, it appears to me that deciding to buy into group selection has to do more with some sort of "ethical appeal" than science.

Regards

[LiberacionIgualdad]

Here it is:

watch?v=pcnCJqDa1us

You might also be interested in watching this presentation by Daniel Dennett called 'Can we know our own minds?'.

watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo

[LiberacionIgualdad]

MultiMaestro,

It's clear that not all humans drop their beliefs in gods after accepting the fact of evolution, but it IS quite obvious that evolution makes gods unnecessary, to say the least, in order to explain the complexity of life.

You might be interested in checking out the 'Genius of Charles Darwin Uncut Interview' with Randolph Nesse, where they explore the imperfections of our bodies, which are proof of them being the result of an unintelligent process with no direction. Regards.