Richard Dawkins: Vestigial Organs: The Wings of the Flightless Cormorant

Richard Dawkins explains how vestigial organs like the stubby wings of the Flightless Cormorant were one of Darwin's key arguments for Evolution.

Download Quicktime version (720p HD):
http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c116791/flightless-cormorants.mov

Get the RDF TV podcast through iTunes!
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=331182596

"In May 2007 Josh and I were among those who went to Galapagos with a large group from the Center for Inquiry. As we walked with the guided parties over the islands, Josh took every opportunity to film the wildlife. Occasionally he would turn the camera on me, and I would ad lib a few words about whatever animals we were looking at. These 'vignettes' were unscripted and unrehearsed, and there was no time for any "Take 2" repetitions, because the guided walk was moving on."

Richard

If you enjoy the video, and would like to help us make more videos like this, please consider donating $1 (or any other amount you'd like) to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science:
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/

Camera & Music by
JOSH TIMONEN

Presented by
THE RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION
FOR REASON AND SCIENCE

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Richard Dawkins
• Flightless Cormorants
• Evolution
• Galapagos Islands
• Biology
• Natural Selection
• Vestigial Organs
• Drying Wings
• birds that can't fly

[Primus2X]

I didn't even know Cormorant was flightless, is it that bird with the ring around the necks that are used for fishing?

[rp007007007]

Noah's ark is a fucking bullshat joke4

[philackey]

@milind006 That is exactly the point. You believe NOTHING is irreducibly complex. Way to man up on taking Behe out of context. This is when I start to realize you aren't interested in the TRUTH. You are only interested in proving what you BELIEVE to be true. If evolution were true it wouldn't need to lie. I respect your right to believe what you want. But, we are men of action lies do not become us.

[milind006]

@philackey I'm sorry, but you seem to have gotten confused. When did I claim that something is irreducibly complex? I do not claim that. I know that creationists and design proponents or the cdesign proponentists claim that. That claim in fact is the basis for the idea of Intelligent Design.

[philackey]

@milind006 Behe clearly said that ether theory, geocentrism and astrology are all examples of theories that have proven to be incorrect. He was giving examples of what people 500 years ago thought. He clearly states that he feels these are incorrect. He states he has no control over what others believed. You are being dishonest. If Behe believed as you assert it would not threaten my world view and I would freely admit it. But to anyone who reads the transcript he didn't.

[philackey]

@milind006 Please name something that is irreducibly complex?

[milind006]

@philackey Again, if you actually read Miller, you will understand that Miller not only understood the analogy correctly, but he also disproved the assertion made by the analogy quite convincingly. In fact it is not really Miller that does the convincing, but the facts he presents on the different favorite examples used Behe.that do the convincing. The immediate example that comes to mind is that of the supposed irreducible complexity of a propulsion motor found in certain bacteria.

[milind006]

@philackey Go to page 38 on this pdf: aclupa. org / downloads / Day11PMSession. pdf It is the transcript of the dover trial.Read from line 18 on that page to line 14 on page 42. Behe has accepted that he thinks of astrology as theory. I know the kind of argument you might put against this, but irrespective of that, your claim that behe believing in astrology is a bald face lie and a misquote is incorrect. It is not a lie. And more importantly it is not a lie about evolution.

[philackey]

@kandtell Dobzhansky proved even through forced mutation of fruit flies they never produced a VIABLE species. After several generations all the mutants died out. He produced 4-wing flies but they lacked the muscle structure to run the extra wings. This proved that several hundred beneficial mutations must occur simultaneously for 1 new structure to evolve. Take all the time you want evolution can NEVER cross this hurdle.. Yet mutation is the only mechanism for change and it fails.

[philackey]

@milind006 As far as Ken Miller, although honestly I haven't read everything he has written I have seen one attempt to refute Behe's work. I found his arguments unconvincing in the least. Its all straw men. He put a mouse trap on his tie. All that shows was he didn't understand the analogy. Miller essentially claims nothing is irreducibly complex. So is that true? Is nothing irreducibly complex? I will try to read more Miller as I am always ready to be converted.