Hello, was that answer really satisfactory for everyone? "They both evolved from the same common ancestry but in different directions." How did this "split" in theory happen? Also how did the Male/Female counterpart develop akin and wasn't and isn't able to conceive the seed/sperm? Considering a common ancestry we could presuppose a human could impregnate or crossbreed successfully with an primate, yet this is not the case. Isnt this "Faith" and "Theory"??? I want and love answers but this is vague, I physically need proof, or some sort of a more defined answer accompanied with tangable evidence. I have been studying evolution for years seeking answers but it is apparent to myself at this point that I can't even go anywhere to see or test for myself any of the many assertions made by our leading scientists. It is frustrating, when talking to scientists and leaders in evolutionary theory I always get an "we could be wrong about the entire process" and "our perceptions could be misanalazing the data we have" as well as "No one can show you, but the findings are documented." It is really old at this point, as well the things that I have been presented with has several natural plausible alternatives than what we in evolutionary community except and hold fast. At this point alot of these guys will tell you as I will admit myself there is really just NO WAY OF KNOWING what really happened in the beginning, to state with any certainty is a lie! The knowledge is beyond us unless provided by a witness that was there, which is what some "FAITHS" and documents offer.
It seems he accepted Dawkins explanation. so in contrast to most creationist who think it is the clever gotcha question and are not interested at all in a logic explanation.
You know why I hate people like dawkins and those who facilitate him?? they teach this theory like it’s fact. they only get over on those who are limited on the actual theory of evolution, until when they meet people who are really verse on the subject of evolution. they first separate micro evolution from macro which is mainly still to this day unproven and remains a theory. In the fossil record there’s very little evidence to fully substantiate the theory of evolution, yet they teach this no sense to our children like it’s fact. the reality is that the theory of MACRO evolution is even more ridiculous than the creationist theory which they view as absurd. They claim the universe evolved from chaos, then organic life from even more chaos, so chaos on top of chaos equals universal order, now that IMO absurdity on steroids. even their own theory defies mathematics where zero from zero remains zero, zero plus zero remains zero, zero minus zero, zero divided by zero all equals zero, so their theory is simple put, mathematically impossible. but you never hear this atheistic circles.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 There was no mention of race. The fact that you have attempted to make it into a race issue is your problem, not the op.
There's something incredibly wholesome about how evolution is being explained and how the explanation is being listened to so intently. This is satisfying to watch.
@@Notdjsbjj explain to me how an organism goes from being single celled to multi celled. I'll let you off easy & we won't worry about how life began. How does an organism grow an eye, for example? Remembering it's not just the eye, it's the muscles, bone structure, nerves etc.
You're blind!! What is this mysterious "not human, but not chimp, but not monkey, but not ape" being at...? Where is the proof? lol. You evolutionist are seriously sick in the head! WHY are there STILL single cell amoebas...? Why are there STILL monkeys, chimps, apes, and humans? Why do WHITE EUROPEANS and FAR EAST CHINESE and BLACK AFRICANS look 100% DIFFERENT? Why are there still fish, snails , lizards...??? ALL OF WHICH we were "suppose to evolve from according to Darwin"....? WAKE UP!!! lol
@@ArchonChaos I skimmed the WHOLE thing..? lol. WHY is it so WILD!????? fish, snails, lizards? Apparently, quote-unquote People like You and Me need to WAKE UP!!!! lol
That is actually a good question. I am baffled that there aren't any other technologically advanced species on this planet. Don't get me wrong. I don't want that. A scenario where we have competition would probably be like Planet of The Apes.
It is a good question , and one would surely not be too immature to ponder/wonder that given enough time why should not the Orangutans , the Gorillas , the Chimps etc etc evolve to a point where they should be able to understand the world of Shakespeare?
There were other technologically advanced species. E.g., neanderthals, who we interbred and competed with until they ceased to exist as a separate species.
We (humans) are already a hybrid of hominids (such as Neanderthals) Any other species capable of our level of development either was absorbed by or outcompeted by us hundreds of thousands of years ago
@@Set2Wumbo I was just going to say, ancient humans would just commit genocide against another sentient race if they were competitiors for resources. it wouldn't be labeled that of course, but that's what we'd do.
Chasing Logic So he could give them free will in whether to obey or disobey him. That is giving them free will, which I personally enjoy, and so do almost everyone else.
Well since dirt isn't living, God had to make living things out of nonliving things since it is impossible otherwise. Then they reproduce. It's not that hard. Even though scientists and evolutionists say it may be possible, none of their tests prove life could begin on earth through nonliving things, or at all.
Because God only needed to make the first man and woman from dirt one time, which does not take up all of the dirt or land in the world. This is the origin of man, not the way every man comes to be. Un-Checkmate
I am glad Dawkins added the bit about chimpanzees still evolving. Most people shut down the conversation by saying the ancestors evolved, not the chimps. That’s true for the past, but chimps, like all living species, are still evolving. We can’t say for sure whether we will be ancestors of new species, but it seems unlikely. Any selection pressure that would be sufficiently strong to cause it would probably take us out of the game.
If that is true, then why did humans evolve to lose all of their body hair and then replace the lost hair with clothing made from the skins of animals? Even modern aboriginals wear clothing in even the hottest environments such as the Maasai. This is a question that “science” has yet to answer.
@@clairvoyantbear664 This is just a guess I pulled out of my ass. It probably has to do with sweating which allowed our ancestors to run and work in the equatorial heat longer without overheating while prey animals that can't sweat need to rest to avoid overheating. They could steadily chase prey to overheating and exhaustion making it an easy kill. Fur would decrease the effectiveness of sweating so it became an evolutionary advantage to have less hair. Having clothes without actual need for them is a cultural thing, you can find tribes that don't wear much at all.
@@clairvoyantbear664 We evolved a lack of hair so sweat would evaporate easier, carrying away more heat when chasing down or tracking prey. Later on, humans developed clothing to not only make cold nighttimes more comfortable, but as they migrated into colder climates it became a necessity. That's why you'll find some tribes that forgo clothing except for over the genitals. They don't require it and their lifestyle actually promotes not wearing much, allowing for the sweat to carry away more heat.
@@clairvoyantbear664 Another theory is that evolution ditched the body hair to ditch the associated parasites. It’s easier to wash a deerskin fur than to constantly de-louse. Chimps spend hours de-lousing each other, time better spent browsing Netflix. Maybe there was selective evolutionary pressure to choose mates with less body hair, because it means you can spend more time at the pub. The big problem with the de-louse theory is that the perfect place for parasites to live is in the warm sweaty pubic area, exactly where body hair is retained. Evolution is the “just-so” theory that keeps giving. No doubt PhDs are being written right now, and undergraduates measured up, all to explain pubic hair on the hairless ape.
If chimp and human had the same ancestor first of all they wouldn't have so huge difference especially in brain development.Second of all being the same species we would be able to reproduce with a chimp.Like a wolf can reproduce with a dog.
@@ckmoto83 we're not the same species. We share a common ancestor. We share common ancestors with all animals, but diverged less recently than with chimpanzees. Whats unbelievable about there being a difference between human and chimpanzee brains?
I have never seen such a misapplication of Carl Sagan's quote. It is not just a claim but an obvious observation to anyone who is not blinded by an a priori belief system. Evolution by natural selection is so well established that only people completely ignorant of all science deny the way the real world works.
Mark Younger He can't tell us anything about this "common ancestor". We must take his word for it. We must trust Richard on this. The chimpanzee actually FAILED TO EVOLVE and thus, remains a chimpanzee. Convenient, isn't it?
We evolved from monkeys and we are still monkeys. You don't evolve out of a clade. Dawkins' response is true but also a bit of a cop-out. It sounds nicer to say that chimps and humans are distantly related rather than to say we're both monkeys. We still have the same broken dna strand with other old world monkeys that prevents generating our own vitamin c.
No it’s not he sounded dumb and I would’ve got on he’s ass, you you a cousin of somthing but not related that’s like saying my cousins aren’t related to me.
Yeah, some of their cognitive abilities such as short term memory really put humans to shame.... we keep thinking how we are special and better then other animals and we are not, not by much anyway.
@@NetAndyCz oke, so a human who can go to the moon, have internet, spread across the whole globe, has tremendous intelligents. Is in your eyes not more special then a horse? how the hell does that even make sense to you? the fact that we are debating this makes us waaaaaaaaaaay more special then any other animal there is.
About as many times as he needs to explain people how their belief is basically just a random chance as to where and to which parents are born or what a scientific "theory" is and how is different from a random idea you came up with sitting on the toilet. It seems very tiresome
that's part of the problem. you'll be surprised how long it takes to educate people, even with modern technology. preaches and other religious people are just human. they're not smarter. in the ways, they're actually dumber. wadr.
brian janson Nobody is asking Dawkins to repeat anything but merely to direct us to this common ancestor he is so certain links us to chimps. We could study it further if Richard could tell us where to find this creature. He must know, so why isn't he telling us?
Whomever popularized the description that humans evolved "from" monkeys, caused a lot of confusion. We evolved "with" monkeys, "from" the common ancestors that were neither monkeys nor human.
We don't evolve 'with monkeys' were monkeys that evolved to suit the savannahs while chimps evolve to survive in a rainforest.Our savannah nature allowed us to walk upright and live in a communal egalitarian society instead of a strongman alpha male one like the chimps
@@AnimalAlmightywhat people dont think about bro where did that common ancestor come from and next where did fish come from we didnt just come out of thin air im down to hear out science but in reality they cant answer that nobody has
@@threefromaco3848We can answer that. Every organism must of come from one common ancestor, and there must have been one last universal common ancestor. The common ancestor came from organisms in the past, its that simple. Its hard to find the species of the common ancestor because there can be many candidates, and there were many many other species similar to them. And the idea that life came non-life is not farfetched. Every organism is already made of non-living components. The term living is vague. If living meant to be capable of self-replication, many organic molecules are capable of doing so. There have been countless studies mimicking early earth conditions which showed that the organic molecules that make up organisms can be made naturally.
He does but he’s since given up on debating with creationists. “For the same reason a reproduction scientist doesn’t debate with an advocate of the stork theory”.
TheMikeSwitch bad example because a cow is an animal meet is part of the animal but humans are not a peace of dead meat they are more smart than chimps so your example is very bad Evolution is a myth and it requires as much believe as believe in unicorns
Chimps evolved to better adapt to a jungle environment. Humans were on the savanna, and evolved to suit that environment. Walking upright and having 2 free limbs allowed for interesting genetic adaptations. The chimps *are* evolving...to become better chimps. Slowly. Very slowly.
This line of logic is very normal for someone to think if they know very little about the science. This guy made a comment that a lot of people would naturally say if it didn’t make sense, Dawkins noticed this and explained it at level he could understand And it seemed he grasped it. This is what learning is about.
carol m a lot of people have misinformation and when they try thinking about it logically, it doesn’t make sense. Dawkins in this interview says at first a “chimpanzee like” creature was what we descended from, for people who don’t know the science this can sound like “descended from monkeys”. Unfortunately, this is what a lot of people think because they just don’t know any better. If that’s what you believe the scientists are saying, then the next logical thing you would wonder is why aren’t modern monkeys evolved. Dawkins then backtracked and clarified that the creature we descended from was neither human or chimp. It seemed like the guy finally grasped the concept after Dawkins explained it more clearly.
You and your siblings, genetically close, have a common ancestor, viz, your parents. You and your first cousins, genetically less close, have a more distant common ancestor, viz, your grandparents. All humans are cousins, genetically even less close, with common ancestors way back in the past. Yet humans are 99.5% similar genetically. Humans and chimpanzees are 98% similar genetically, which means they have a common ancestor even further back, estimated to be about 7 millions ago.
Please, NEVER mock someone for asking a genuine question. Such mockery is one of the sure signs of a terrible teacher. The question was genuine, and the answer brilliantly illuminating.
I politely beg to disagree. it is not so much that someone asks a genuine question. It is that the same question has been asked - and answered - a million times over. Nevertheless, creationist come forward and ask the question in a self-satisfied manner anew as if they just discovered something that would put the theory of evolution in its right place.
@@omnivorous65 Hi, thanks for the reply. I didn't detect that manner from the questioner, if you did, well, we're all different! However many times a teacher has heard a question, (and a good teacher never reveals to the questioner that she's heard it many times before) the questioner deserves a respectful answer in return for the interest shown. A teacher who mocks or is sarcastic may deter any more questions, deter any more interest, and may sow the seed which ends up putting the pupil off education forever - just that one reply! It's so sad when terrible teachers do that, but they do.
@@omnivorous65 Mm. I’d love to hear your take on this. Why hasn’t any species, ever in the history of Earth, evolved to our level of intelligence? A more complex brain and higher intelligence would be a net gain for almost any species. But, after humans who are discovering the nature of dark matter in the universe, the next smartest species is the Chimpanzee, who eats ants off a stick. I’m sure you’ll say something like “different advantages in different areas”, but intelligence would just be a positive trait to evolve for any species over time. It makes no sense that rationality doesn’t naturally develop over any species over time - the smartest should, on average, survive better.
@@tonygardner5101 We tend to exaggerate the value of intelligence since we are an intelligent species and intelligence aided to our survival. But intelligence is enormously costly. Our brain consumes a freakish amount of energy even in a resting state. The big brain increases head size that makes giving birth in humans a dicey proposition. Our level of intelligence requires a really long development period, huge parental investments and on top of it - can be applied to warfare in ways that makes human conflict extremely costly. There are lot of downsides to intelligence. Ultimately, the only criterion of evolutionary success is reproduction. And there are many other ways to achieve that. Quick reproductive cycles (think rodents or bacteria). Plenty of offspring. Adaptability. Resilience. It is quite likely that bacteria will survive us as a species by a wide margin. Or rodents. Or cockroaches. Even if we make it into the distant future, it is highly unlikely that - as a species - we will do that in our current shape or form. If we develop strong AI we might be replaced by something of our own creation. Or we engage in genetical engineering and the result is a much different organism from us. So, tell me, how did intelligence benefit us at species level? If we don't make it, either by environmental destruction, nuclear war, etc. - again, is intelligence really that wonderful as a survival tool? One hypothesis why we have not encountered alien intelligence is the possibility that any civilisation capable of technology will eventually destroy itself.
@@omnivorous65 Not really, though. Considering humans have conquered virtually every single biome on the planet besides the deep sea. And again - why not see any development there? Like at all? The rat is very resilient. A smart rat would be even more so. Unless you want to argue a smarter rat would start hanging themselves as a species, unable to handle the reality of creation? 😂
How do we know chimps are still evolving? What records have we kept over the last 10,000 years? Million years? 30 million years since the last major split? And why aren't there hundreds of splits right now with all of the billions of copies that humans have produced through natural copulation? There should be an absurd amount different styles of chimps at this point. We should be seeing many variations of human-like species. Like a spectrum of similar beings in between humans and chimpanzees.
They've proven it already by putting a type of lizard on two different islands in Croatia 30 years ago. Within several generations, the lizards on the island with carrion or small edible animals evolved a valve in their stomachs that assisted in digesting meat, while the other lizards did not evolve that adaptation. Same thing with moths becoming black in parts of Europe with acid rain causing dead trees while others remained white (they same species originally - genetically proven).
does this mean if we take apes and put them in a complex society, they can evolve too ? They tried this with the Kardashians. The experiment took a tragic turn. It ended up making a billion human viewers apes instead. Be careful of what you wish for
@@Jamie-js3qw "Evolve" actually means (in part) some apes kill other apes - both within their own species and other species of apes. Survival of the fittest meaning only the strongest survive.
Yeah it is like asking why we do not see any transitional species now, there are some question that show how fundamentally some people do not understand what evolution is about.
Why doesn't anyone take the explanation to the further point it needs to go to in order to be fully explained. The man asked why the chimpanzees aren't extinct as a result. While this is clearly a wrong assumption it gives an opportunity for a needed explanation. The common ancestor of both most likely was dying out due to natural selection. Certain gene mutations resulted in creatures with different traits that survived as a result of these new traits. Some of those gene mutations led to humans, others led to chimps. There were also most likely mutations that weren't successful so those creatures died off also. So the common ancestor died off because it didn't have the right traits. Since those mutations led to two creatures, man and chimps, that were successful then we still have them today. The original creature dying off from natural selection leads to new creatures whose mutations were successful in keeping them alive and breeding. Evolution does not work by killing off one kind of creature when another kind appears. It works by changing that creature when the original creature starts dying off. Natural selection doesn't work as a result of evolution. Evolution works as a result of natural selection.
Good explanation. Here is some strong evidence of evolution. 1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. This doesn't contradict that god couldn't have started it all, but it certainly contradicts the biblical telling. 2 The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. The more we search, the more this is proven. I guess some could think god has planted millions of fossils to fool scientists. One never finds dinosaur fossils with humans unless they were planted by someone as a goof or misleading "plant". When we find a particular dinosaur fossil, elephant, or a DeLorean car; it's always falls inside a certain historical timeline, and we know this by radiocarbon dating or radioactive decay of Isotopes verified repeatedly by scientist throughout the world. 3 Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we hared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to ow long ago our genetic lines diverged. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordate" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor. 4 Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial inoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.? 5 We have seen Evolution occur during the Industrial Age in England where black-peppered moths can hide in trees more easy than white moths and so after a generation there were most black moths . But the evidence in favor of natural selection (evolution) on peppered moths continued to accumulate. England and other countries cleaned up their air in the late 1900s, and trees went from dark to light. Now natural selection’s balance shifted: black moths became a liability. And, as you’d predict, the dark moths went from common back to rare again. Evolution has tons and tons of evidence supporting it. All different fields of science like: Anatomy, Chemistry, Zoology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Taxonomy, Embryology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Geology, ERV's and the Fossil Record all cross-confirms the theory of evolution independently. 6 Homologies. Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms. 7 Vestigial Structures (This particular proof is not one of the strongest and there are flaws in the argument..) Vestigial organs (tonsils, third molars, appendix) have long been one of the classic arguments used as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: living organisms, including man, contain organs that were once functional in our evolutionary past, but that are now useless or have reduced function. More importantly, vestigial organs are considered by some evolutionists to be evidence against Creationism because they reason a perfect Creator would not make useless organs. 8 The incredible rate at which we're finding transitional fossils now that we're looking 9 the dating of the strata and the knowledge of mutation rates in species lead to conclusions that time after time, strongly correlate 10. Science using Radiocarbon dating works up to 50000 years and uranium lead Isotopes goes back much future to provide time and other radiometric isotopes the age of the earth and fossils and estimates the world began around 14 billion yrs ago, and the earth was formed from supernovas about 4.5 billion years ago. Radio dating and Isotopes are one of the strongest evidences that prove evolution because these tests are duplicated every waking hour by scientists
@@oppothumbs1 Another example are bacteria that have evolved the ability to digest nylon, which has been in existence for less than a century. During the carboniferous era plants evolved the ability to produce lignin and suberin, so they could develop rigid structures and grow to unprecedented size. The problem was that no organism had the ability to break down these substances, so dead plants did not decay and the wood they produced accumulated. It took about 90 million years for organisms to evolve the ability to digest wood fibres, which is why so much coal was deposited during that era.
I knew the answer to this question without even researching it. it's entirely elementary I used the way dogs have a common ancestor to the wolf as a way to explain it to a Christian
+Kallihan Kokernot I don't think it's a matter of "getting it". There are Christian scientists, you know. If there was something that truly contradicted Christianity and made it impossible, there would be no way a Christian scientist can exist. Sometimes I feel people think Christians are illogical blind lunatics. When the fact of the matter is, believing in a clearly perfectly designed universe that came to be through a matter of chance is absurd. The chances of everything turning out so perfectly like how it is now is so insanely small, it's quite ridiculous.
but our universe isn't perfect. I know you think that. But by no means are we doing effect beings in a perfect universe. It's just small minded to think that way.
They teach you this in elementary. Religious people just like to play selective hearing similar to how they play selective verses, also known as, cherry picking.
@@Fx_Explains OK. The way Christians think about divorce today has nothing to do with what Jesus clearly said in Matthew 19:9. He was pretty clear. He stated that the only biblical reason to divorce is adultery. He did not mentioned any reason else. But Christians divorce today for many reasons beside adultery. Another one the main activity of true Christians is evangelizing from door to door as Jesus did. He clearly COMMANDED Christians to do so in Matthew 24:14 and 28:18-20. But most Christians stay at home and think that reading the Bible is enough. In fact I am amazed that those who are preaching door to door are called cults (Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons). But the "official Christians " are not even following the main activity of their master. In fact they call themselves Christians while they are not even doing the basic thing (preaching work) a Christian is supposed to do. And there are many others cherry picking out there
These birds already had the genetic information for these beak differentials. They did not evolve within the lifetime of the observer. The peppered moth story is a great example of the same dynamics involved. Can natural selection explain these different genetic frequencies? Yes. Can NS account for how we got birds or any other creature in the first place? Absolutely not, & the limitations of NS as well as the refutation of the modern synthesis has been made explicit in the current literature.
Do you even know him? He has debated and talked about evolution for hours. He is an expert in his feild. He doesn’t needs to dodge questions about the topic he is expert in.
This proves how little do you know about evolution. Evolution is a slow and gradual process. It takes millions of years. Every species evolves but we just can’t notice it because it happens so slowly. adult.
@@Abubakr10008 If chimps and us had the same ancestor millions of years ago, why did we change and became to what we are today, but chimps haven't changed? It's not like chimps are a recent species. They've been around for the same amount of time as us.
@@Abubakr10008 He dodged this one, cause he didn't know the answer. Search on youtube "Richard Dawkins can't answer question" and see how he gives the same answer as in this video to a different question. Seems like when he doesn't know how to answer a question, he gives the same answer to every question.
@@BerishaFatian chimps are changing, they have evolved the same way we did, but in a different direction You can believe evolution is not true, but the whole "why are there still chimps" is perfectly coherent with what evolution says
@@keriwilliams8980 Of course there are extinct species of hominid yet to found, but those fossils tend to be rare. We'll find more, but who can say what their importance will be?!
Responding to some comments I read here: Evolution in no way implies that the original species must die down once its better suited mutations appear. Both the evolved and un-evolved may continue to prosper in different geographies, or maybe even in the same area if resources aren't lacking.
Evolution is fake if it were true the world would be in total chaos you people are dumb for believing this is all by chance makes zero sense whatsoever
@@1sgr1999 Please try to outgrow your ignorance. You’re here claiming that 99% of the worlds scientists are “dumb”. Please realise how daft that makes you sound
This question is what comes out of young kids with no concept of the time and change involved. I remember thinking there was probably chimps in hospital losing their hair and having their jaws flattening out etc and learning to speak because someone told me chimps were still evolving. Lol
both sides are respectable and a gentleman wishes to learn, asked a very crucial and interesting question, while the other teaches and they both listen to each other. Very wholesome and exemplar.
Biggest problem here is that no matter how much true evidence is shown, It will never be enough to satisfy people who believe in a God. They are blind to the truth because they have faith.... and they really really want to believe that when they die there is something more
I’m a Christian, for me personally I don’t really care much about an afterlife per say. The thing that made me give Christianity a chance was knowing that there was someone above me who had authority and wanted the best for me. It was knowing that the reason why my life was so miserable was because I believed I was unable to control my life and be free of suffering. Once I accepted that God was the divine authority I have e up the reigns and let the Lord guide me. Knowing that even though I felt so alone and hopeless there was a God who loved me more then I could ever love myself moved me beyond words.
As a Christian I generally disagree with Dawkins' views as well as his methods. But here he did a great job of explaining why that particular question makes no sense from the scientist's perspective. I also think it's cool that he didn't act like a jerk to the guy for asking him that.
I was also happy to see that Dawkins wasn't combative this time. The question I have for you is why do you disagree with the views of Dawkins? Being a Christian isn't a universal reason since many Christians accept evolution and the Darwin-Wallace theory explaining the process.
We are part of the primate family. The same way sharks are part of the fish family. Doesn’t mean all these different fish species will turn into sharks.
We are sooo used to instant gratification that many believe the transformation occurred overnight instead of over millions of years and therefore each iteration change is nearly indistinguishable.
It’s amazing how many people don’t understand that evolution isn’t intrinsic knowledge you’re born with, and the fact he’s asking questions and listening is a good thing
Your comment is pretty recent, so I’ll just tack this take onto yours. The gentleman here was asking the wrong question. The evolutionary process leads to the genetic outcome that yields the highest success in nature; considering humans have pretty much taken over the entire planet, why is there not a single species, in the history of Earth, that has even remotely approached our intelligence? Are they just unlucky? Because, over time, it would seem to me that a larger brain and higher intelligence would be a net gain for almost any species. But after us, the next smartest is a monkey that eats ants off a stick. You don’t find that curious?
@@tonygardner5101 intelligence is not the end goal of evolution, and the biological parts making the "decisions" about whether to evolve left or right, simplistically, have no knowledge of the planet/other species/intelligence, it's just what will make me able to keep on reproducing
@@tonygardner5101 there is no "wrong question" not all people have the same knowledge as other, i believe there is a lot of people who believe in evolution didn't even know that piece of information, too many people treat knowledge as a given things (oh you didn't know these things? At this age?, what a dumbass) and treating it as a social status looking down at others with less knowledge instead of helping them and answering the question, or worse punching them down
@@tonygardner5101 humans have taken over the world with our technology, but thats not why evolution evolved big brains. Big brains are expensive, so if you arent getting anything out of them right now, they are a big problem to have. You cant afford to wait thousands of years for your brain to develop tech and pay itself off, you need a big advantage right now. In our case I heard some theories say that our big brains evolved to be able to make and mantain bigger tribes, and run simulations of what might happen if we do something before doing it, and technology came as a happy accident out of that So most animals dont evolve their brains further, because the beneft they will give by getting a tiny bit smarter are too small to be worth the extra cost
@@tonygardner5101 it's quite simple, you don't need intelligence to be succesful. Ants have spread around the world and seen millions of species disappear, for millions of years. We on the other hand probably won't last not even a fraction of their existence. So muchbfor a big brain, at least you can use it to watch clips here
I find it so odd that he doesn't understand the concept of simultaneous existence by way of divergence. Not everyone and everything mutates in the same way or all at the same time. If it worked the way he is assuming, there would only ever be one species of life on the planet, which is unsustainable at the very instance it happens. What...is it about some people that makes it so difficult to comprehend that?
I agree with the other guy. Chimps have been eating the same food and breathing the same air as us. Wtf is taking them so long? You think they would have come up with at least an alphabet by now
@@Bee-tj8gcI read your comment and you still don't get it then. Let me explain. Why do you mention chimps had to learn the alphabet by now when you know we aren't from them? So there's no reason why they should know the alphabet. You want to make a correlation between us and chimps when you know we're both from the common ancestor. Now the factors as to why some evolved into humans and some evolved into chimps I'm not quite sure. I need to read more about this myself. They evolved into chimps not humans and thus will not know the alphabet.
@@Chris-lp8mz they don't know any alphabet and haven't invented one because aren't intelligent like we are. Not because they aren't human.. It's same reason they still need to hide in trees from lions.
@@abhmd4481 An analogy compares relationships. The relationship between humans and chimps is like the relationship between the US and Britain. They come from a common ancestor, and over time they developed differences. 🎉 Analogy 🎉
Apes have literally been proven to be in the stone age. They will not look like humans but by the time they evolve fully, they’ll have the same mindset as one of us.
no they aren't. also there's no "fully" evolved and evolution doesn't occur just to occur. the reason we are so smart is because of the hostile environments which drove our evolution
@@heythere6983 And THAT is the one hurdle they can not get over. And never will. Why? Because there is no Missing Link. If there was then surely it would have been found by now. You can not find anything that is non-existent.
Asking why chimps "aren't evolving into humans" is like asking why horses aren't evolving into Zebras. All evolution requires is reproduction, heritable variation, and natural selection. It does not have a direction, it only describes development.
Evolution does not mean every species turns into humans. To think of yourself as the absolute pinnacle of evolution (or creation) is actually the absolute pinnacle of arrogance.
Good question and fine answer. My next question is why is there not something with a close amount of intelligence. Dolphins and crows are supposed to be the next smartest animal to humans.
@@4realjacob637 One might argue that already kind of happened as several different forms of humans were on Earth at the same time (like the Neanderthals) but only one prospered. It is my personal opinion that only one intelligent species can exist on a planet as it would take over the planet making difficult for other forms of intelligence to rise. Alternatively (or in addition to it) one should consider that it might take million of years for that kind of intelligence to evolve therefore intelligent species on the same planet if at all possible might be separated by enormous amounts of time
I'm glad that there are videos like this one. I knew about evolution but I've never ask myself those questions before. Now I feel more educated. Thank you for it!
In truth, this is historical science, and therefore conjecture. There’s no proof of these theories, and this is a religious exposition. I acknowledge his religious dogma: _everything came from nothing by accident and intelligent life evolved from pondscum_ But I do *not* respect it.
@@h2w25 No proof except the extensive fossil record nearly perfectly showing the exact evolution he described. Also the DNA analysis proving we are more similar to chimpanzees than any other species.
@@sirbarnabyst.johntoffingto9017 yeah I was a little frustrated after reading the comment but you are right it’s a little too sarcastic-I’ll get rid of the last line. Won’t change anyone’s mind by being combative 👍
Richard Dawkins response to creationism. (Paraphrased) "I can't prove the big bang is true because it defies all known laws of physics but I definitely know it wasn't God who created to universe even though I can't offer any proof."
The Big Bang theory supposedly originated from the creation story of the Kabbalah, so it's possible he's defending religious texts when he talks about the Big Bang. Also, the idea was put forward by a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, so I'm sure that pissed Dawkins off.
We don't know shit about the Big Bang, hence it being one in a sea of theories. Evolution is different by every possible metric; we have direct evidence of how creatures change and mutate to suit different environments. and while Evolution is credited as a theory, it is the absolute most widely accepted one due to this.
Although modification happens, the transition from one kind to another has never been demonstrated. As such the theory of evolution can never credibly claim to have produced the diversity of life we see on earth.
absolutely.... dawkins would say well complete change in species happen over million years, BS.... make a virus into a bacteria or a bacteria into a fungus, they evolve pretty rapidly, that is a very simple way to change everyone's mind isn't it....
@@drdhakan87 Yeah that's one bacteria or one virus, but animals and plants are composed with billions and trillions of bacteria. Evolution occurs through millions of years, it really does take a long ass time.
@@angrygopnik2317 thats another way of saying we can't prove anything... same as creationist say we can't show u God.... but u can collect triilions of bacteria and viruses in a lab and let them divide, an animal can theoretically take millions of years but single celled organism should take lot less than that to show u decent proof of evolution but no one has done that, cz they cant....
@@drdhakan87 he could say that but we could also say, until you demonstrate it happening, you can't say that it does happen. He would ask no less of believers when it comes to God.
@@andrewdaly21 yes true so i dont understand when athiest pretend that they have definitive proof of what they say....they don't, plus they cant disprove the existence of God...so this charade that they are scientific and believe in facts and analytics its all BS, they're just following a new religion blindly....
This is certainly a better explanation than my 4th grade teacher gave me. "Is it possible that Chimps could eventually evolve to something more like humans?" "No"
like the black adder lord flash heart? to be fair a 4th grade teacher was probably as clueless as the students but he was right non the less as its well known humans never evolved from apes..
Not on my gods green flat Earth where everything happened because it was good. These people and their facts supported by evidence. If things go their way we'll have to think logically and that's a big no no in gods plan
It’s funny you are saying this without looking at any of the thousands of Christian writers who discuss logic. Look up St. Augustine the Bishop of Hippo.
@@saymyname8925 Well since i am not the one posting insulting comments about others just because i disagree with their beliefs, i don't see how you work that one out.
I used to ask my self this question too, but came to the same conclusion. We aren't a direct descendent of the ape, we shared a cousin with the ape who evolved into us.
No, we are APES, Great Apes to be specific. Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutangs, etc. all descend from some pre-Ape ancestor. So therefore, since we are cousins with chimps and gorillas, we are by virtue, also apes. You are an ape or a hominid, as it known in Latin. You are also technically an Old World Monkey, a primate, a mammal, a reptilomorph, a tetrapod, a lobe-finned fish, etc. ALSO if you didn’t know, birds are technically dinosaurs. TLDR, not only are you an ape, you are a fish as well.
Love his tone where he thinks he’s found a hole in the theory of evolution! If you’re going to disagree with a theory, you should at least understand what theory is in its most simple form. This guy is an utter time waster.
Its kinda funny how some people pronounce it EVIL-ution. I have no problem with it but people who already think evolution is evil can point at that and say “look! See I told you it’s evil!” Haha
And there's me thinking WHERE'S the evidence? A man who made millions from teaching and talking about "evolution" can't provide evidence for evolution but is hoping the public will just take uncle Richard's word for it. LMAO!
Yep, it’s certainly for dummies… evolution is still..’theory’.. there are countless living organisms that are still the same as in the past… and yet Dawkins cannot explain the simple fact how cold blooded animals evolved into warm blooded animals and why warm blooded animals (whales) did not evolve into the cold blooded sea creatures more suited to their environment.. 😏
I think the average chimp would be shocked to find out how dumb the average human really is. We truly are a species which stands on the shoulders of giants. The same can be said for modern day intellects. I’m convinced If you remove the top 1% of our brightest intellects our species would crumble. lmfao
Let's hope we never have to find out. Tragically, however there could be several potential test cases in the world where many of the brightest left the country, aka brain drain, leaving the rest to carry on.
I don't think it's really 'patience' that Dawkins is showing, but rather an incredible ability to communicate in a clarifying kind of way. Best explanation ever, and he should have been there dispelling misinformed notions when those 19th century newspaper cartoonists were idiotically criticizing Darwin. Even our contemporary archetypal animate meme showing the rise of man still incorporates the fallacy that Dawkins is putting to bed.
Q: Why aren't you still being born from your cousin? A: I wasn't born from my cousin, we just share a common ancestor in our grandparents. Q: OOOK SO if you and your cousin share the same grandparents, why does your cousin still exist? A: 😲 Makes no sense when you put the questions like that.
Even if this is how it works, why can't they develop consciousness, or walk in a more erected manner? I thought it was something random. And another question, what happened to our common ancestor? Why did he disappear but chimpanzees didn't?
Humans don't come from monkeys! Wake up! They just don't want you to believe in god! Darwin was a eugenics and in favor of sterilizing undesirables! Wake up!
Imagine you're in a room and you're in the back of it, and I said you were only allowed to leave using micro steps. Would you declare it impossible since each step can only bring you ever so slightly away from your starting point?
Good point Andrew. I will admit I'm not an evolutionary scientist but as I understand it; Environmental conditions are what typically cause evolutionary changes to occur. For example, at some point a creature that was not able to see kept bumping into things, falling off high places, getting killed by things that could see/sense movement, so it would've developed some type of sensory equipment that would help it detect its surroundings before it physically encountered them/was killed by them... So if the common ancestor of us and apes encountered a need to upgrade why did it split off into two directions, one that seems intellectually advanced while the other seems physically advanced in some ways but seriously lacking in its overall intellect. Additionally would this ancestor have been "inferior " to both of its evolutionary offspring? If so what is this ancestor of ours? Have they found evidence of it or is it simply a theory? I have presupposed that you know more than I do about the theory of evolution.
@@andrewmorse2181 Different niches exist within the same area. Smaller monkeys with prehensile tails live in the taller branches of trees where it is safer. Large apes live on the forest floor.
you better ask Ken Ham of the Ark Experience that question. he has the wildest theories about it. He figured it all out, but hasn't tackled to problem of the enormous amoung of methan gass collecting in a badly ventilated boat of a year time, without the Ark exploding the moment madame Noah made breakfast.
He may be misguided with his religious faith, but I give this man credit for at least being willing to politely listen...he seems like he actually wants to LEARN from Dawkins.
So Richard Dawkins just explained that human beings were NEVER descended from chimpanzees. What's next? Is he going to say that Jesus was the Son of God? ☺ thanks Richard!
Yes, because that is correct. No scientist ever said we were descended from chimps. It is a common misconception. We share a common ancestor, that's it.
I have often wondered why fish aren't evolving into birds right before my eyes. Like, if birds were once fish, then it stands to reason that I should have seen at least one fish turn into a bird.
I suspect you're simply not devoting enough time to this. My recommendation is that you watch fish closely for 12-14 hours a day. Then your chances of seeing one suddenly transform into a bird will be greatly increased!
@@kashankhan6950 Religious stupidity as expected. Reading nothing about evolution but still spreading bullshit. There are Paleontological ,genetic, biological and fossil evidence of evolution. If you don't believe in science leave this youtube and stuffs like this because internet is created by science not by religious stupids.
@@kashankhan6950 We know how religious states works Afghanistan,Iran,Saudi Arabia etc. There is no ignorance to state the fact here in case evolution is a fact which can't be understood by some dumb religious books which say you will go to heaven and get white virgin woman in milk bath after death if you kill people for your religion. Isn't that more ignorant? Can you give evidence?
Now ain’t that the truth. They require something to fill the void of the abyss! It is really dark and lonely in there so they need converts to join them in the illusion.
@@dipanjanghosal1662 nope.. it’s the truth.. ur just not willing to accept it as it’s “inconvenient” to you.. And you’ve been raised with a worldview of atheism/agnosticism
@@henrydaley1255 it’s not man made though… It’s real.. Christ is real.. all it is real.. People just don’t give Him a chance.. Too afraid… If you believe in something false like “the great spaghetti monster” you simply won’t get a manifestation/effect…
Once I read a book (trying to remember the name, something about dog illusions, it will come to me) and understood natural selection, it was like a light bulb moment. I looked around at nature, and it was suddenly so obvious. But I think a lot of people have a casual idea of mutations, like an animal one day gives birth to the next evolution of species, or "Lamarckian" ideas about animals who use their muscles a lot will give birth to stronger babies. It's great they don't deny reality, but it would be even better if inheritance, hormone expression, gene populations, natural selection, etc could become "household" knowledge.
It is amazing how beautiful and simple the theory of evolution is. The technical details are complicated, but other than that it is just two things. 1) Random Mutations 2) Selective Pressure (natural selection, sexual selection) Not much more to it, sure there is genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium and more, but those are small details in the big picture. The important thing is that organisms respond to their surroundings and selective pressures, there is no end goal. And speciation happens when population splits and different selection pressure is applied... Why so many educated people cannot grasp this simple concept? Still have not heard anyone refute evolution and demonstrate they actually know what it is about.
I try to give my explanation. In evolution, there is such a rule that one certain species can appear only once. It can be compared with the fact that a certain person can be born only also once. The question "if humans evolved from apes, why then didn't other apes evolve to humans" is no different from "if my mother gave birth to me, why didn't other women give birth to me?" Evolution can only make species that is similar to another one, for example, dolphins are similar to fish. It is callef convergent evolution. So the question "why didn't other apes become similar to humans?" can be answered by that they lived in another environment than ancestors of humans. They have adaptations needed for their environment. People have adaptations needed for their environment
So we are descendants of something else and that mystery being is extinct. From that one mystery being, two different species was produced, cousins too boot....They are cousins, but can not reproduce. Last time I checked cousins could reproduce...They do it all the time in Arkansas. But really...This evolution shit is not the issue. We all know evolution is credible and explains a lot about the way things are now in all life forms. What I don't understand is why religion has to be the topic of discussion in this debate. Although science has brought to light some astonishing findings, it still can't answer the million dollar question. Science can only go so far. Science demands facts...Here is a fact for you...This universe function by designee and if you have designee it would require a designer.....Dare I call it God?
Sounds like a story. Maybe it's true. Pretty amazing that from a big bang, a lot of biological units evolved e.g. Tigers, elephants, dolphins, apes, humans etc. Wunderbar!!
@@danieljoseph369 No. The validity of neither theory is predicated validity of the other. If evolution were to be disproven today, it would have no impact on the big bang theory and vice versa. What's your point about the shared DNA? We share common ancestors with both chimpanzees and gorillas. Our common ancestor with gorillas was further back than the one with chimps. So what?
The issue is people arrogantly think that being human is some pinnacle of achievement and that evolution means "smarter" and that really means they don't understand how evolution works.
Yeah and it's bullshit. You guys cling to this shit while scientists are still baffled over how the universe was created. Scientists are even beginning to realise maybe there is something fine tuning the universe. You're an in the box thinker and always will be with your science.
@@ViolentGenius Science is evolving while your religion is stuck in the past. Without science you wouldn't have been able to write your stupid comment. There are some or over 4,300 religions in the world but none of them have ever shown/proven their God or Supernatural beings.
Why would nature cause the removal of fur, only to have the human species have to create a fur substitute like sweaters and jackets? Wouldn't we have been better with fur?
+pigjubby1 If you were really interested in the answer, you would look it up for yourself. Instead you chose to imply that humans never had body hair with a loaded, passive aggressive question.
There's a theory why we lost most of our hair and it says that because of travelling our bodies could have gotten too warm so we lost our hair and sweat can better get into the clouds from the skin. You see my english is not the best so just google it
+pigjubby1 You said how the invention of clothing actually renders the body hair thing meaningless - so much about Scandinavia. Middle Easterns have no particular benefit from having less hair. Also body hair has an purpose (e.g. it increases sensibility or scent transmission). In regards to that there is this thing called "sexual selection" which makes this even more complicated. Next time you want to see something that makes no real sense to you, you could just look at male nipples or your appendix (assuming you live in a first world country). They are in the same league as body hair.
Dawkins is a very smart fool. The real important question is the one Jesus posed to his followers, "who do you say I am?" Answer that one correctly and you're one giant step closer to a true understanding of where we came from.
Jesus never had an original thought. All his philosophy came from others who preceded him. I think the worst part about Jesus was how he threw a hissy fit when a fig tree didn't give him fruit on the off-season. What a spaz.
He asked a question that people who haven't thought about how evolution works often ask: Why isn't everything evolving to a "higher" level of existence? Why are there still so many dumb creatures rather than only smart ones? Laypeople have a feeling that there must be a general direction for evolution, like a guiding desire to reach a higher state of being, which is why "intelligent design" is popular among religious people who are trying to come to terms with evolutionary arguments. He is asking "Why haven't chimps evolved into humans, why haven't they become more perfect?" Of course, evolution doesn't work to perfect anything, or achieve progress, or reach a superior manner of existence. Evolution creates organisms capable of filling ecological niches that are available, that's all. Depending on the niche, the evolved solutions (i.e. species) may be more or less complex. There is a an ecological niche (i.e. a place and a potential way of life) for a large, high-IQ creature like a human, there is a place for an oak that lives off the sun, then there is a place for a squirrel that eats the acorns and a place for a mosquito that feeds on the squirrel and on the human. Evolution does not push creatures to become greater, smarter, bigger or more imposing, it just blindly generates things that can survive, somewhere, somehow. As long as there enough acorns and not too many mosquitos (i.e parasites and predators) there is a place for squirrels to live. Squirrels and chimpanzees don't want to be human when they grow up.
Yeah but where did everything come from? As I understand, Once upon a time, long, long ago, so far back our brains can't actually perceive or quantify the value applied, nothing existed, not even empty space because that would be something. Then suddenly out of the nothing, something, somehow came into existence. It seems like it exploded, but somehow possesses qualities not at all like any demonstrable repeatable in a lab explosion, having regularly occurring rotations and spiraling etc., this something is still expanding in every direction at a rate much more massive than we can measure, at the presumed edge of this something is logically nothing, which doesn't make sense because how can something exist where there is nothing to exist in? I'm just wondering.
Second question, you posit that evolution blindly generates things that can survive somewhere somehow. This sounds a little like a directed force of some kind, rather than a process that simply happens. Why does evolution generate things that can survive somehow but we see that quite often these things cannot survive. For example dodo birds died off. They existed for some period of time. Yet they now do not, except in history. Is this a relevant question?
@@Guzmudgeon Evolution works by accumulation of random mutations followed by natural selection. Yeah, obviously, things survive for a while and then with random changes in the environment, many of them don't. There is no external force, just conditions in the environment that let some things thrive while others die. It's so obvious it sounds too obvious to be a good explanation, which is why a lot of people feel they need more complicated explanations. But a good explanation doesn't need to sound smart, or emotionally satisfying, or intuitive, it just needs to correctly predict what happens.
Actually my friend who studied science explained to me about this in the same manner in 11 Standard when I asked the same question haha what a coincidence.
the guy seemed to be really open about the response he got and not sound ignorant instead
Master Penquin very rare type of evolution questioning creatonist. I have serious respect for him
Yes. Lack of knowledge with a lack of ignorance and a lack of fear has a future.
Yes, I was surprised he didn't shake his head and keep repeating: "Show me the evidence! Show me the evidence!" ;)
Most creationists ask gotcha questions. This gentleman actually wants to know more.
Hello, was that answer really satisfactory for everyone? "They both evolved from the same common ancestry but in different directions." How did this "split" in theory happen? Also how did the Male/Female counterpart develop akin and wasn't and isn't able to conceive the seed/sperm? Considering a common ancestry we could presuppose a human could impregnate or crossbreed successfully with an primate, yet this is not the case. Isnt this "Faith" and "Theory"??? I want and love answers but this is vague, I physically need proof, or some sort of a more defined answer accompanied with tangable evidence. I have been studying evolution for years seeking answers but it is apparent to myself at this point that I can't even go anywhere to see or test for myself any of the many assertions made by our leading scientists. It is frustrating, when talking to scientists and leaders in evolutionary theory I always get an "we could be wrong about the entire process" and "our perceptions could be misanalazing the data we have" as well as "No one can show you, but the findings are documented." It is really old at this point, as well the things that I have been presented with has several natural plausible alternatives than what we in evolutionary community except and hold fast. At this point alot of these guys will tell you as I will admit myself there is really just NO WAY OF KNOWING what really happened in the beginning, to state with any certainty is a lie! The knowledge is beyond us unless provided by a witness that was there, which is what some "FAITHS" and documents offer.
at least he is asking good questions and Richard Dawkins is explaining and teaching patiently. that’s how we learn
I agree. I think that's why Prof Dawkins was patient; it was a genuine question, seeking clarification and not an attempt to refute or score points.
It seems he accepted Dawkins explanation.
so in contrast to most creationist who think it is the clever gotcha question and are not interested at all in a logic explanation.
Good plan, world should be informed.
You know why I hate people like dawkins and those who facilitate him?? they teach this theory like it’s fact. they only get over on those who are limited on the actual theory of evolution, until when they meet people who are really verse on the subject of evolution. they first separate micro evolution from macro which is mainly still to this day unproven and remains a theory.
In the fossil record there’s very little evidence to fully substantiate the theory of evolution, yet they teach this no sense to our children like it’s fact. the reality is that the theory of MACRO evolution is even more ridiculous than the creationist theory which they view as absurd. They claim the universe evolved from chaos, then organic life from even more chaos, so chaos on top of chaos equals universal order, now that IMO absurdity on steroids.
even their own theory defies mathematics where zero from zero remains zero, zero plus zero remains zero, zero minus zero, zero divided by zero all equals zero, so their theory is simple put, mathematically impossible. but you never hear this atheistic circles.
@@anthonyblackman7669 I stopped reading at "micro" and "macro".
We should never belittle someone who wants to learn. Knowledge should prevail over pride.
Please, take your patronising, racist comments somewhere else.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 There was no mention of race. The fact that you have attempted to make it into a race issue is your problem, not the op.
Sadly Dawkins never got the memo and thinks being good at biology makes him an expert philosopher
Literally nothing about this comment is racist you sped lmfao
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Take your race baiting self somewhere else.
There's something incredibly wholesome about how evolution is being explained and how the explanation is being listened to so intently. This is satisfying to watch.
It's called being 'patronised'.
Doesn’t make it more any more likely to be true lol
Evolution isn't being explained. It can't be explained. It's not true
@@TheRastacabbage "Why we still got monkeys??"
@@Notdjsbjj explain to me how an organism goes from being single celled to multi celled. I'll let you off easy & we won't worry about how life began. How does an organism grow an eye, for example? Remembering it's not just the eye, it's the muscles, bone structure, nerves etc.
There is NOTHING wrong with this question, as long as its genuine and you are willing to explore the answer.
Answer: because they are dumb.
You're blind!! What is this mysterious "not human, but not chimp, but not monkey, but not ape" being at...? Where is the proof? lol. You evolutionist are seriously sick in the head! WHY are there STILL single cell amoebas...? Why are there STILL monkeys, chimps, apes, and humans? Why do WHITE EUROPEANS and FAR EAST CHINESE and BLACK AFRICANS look 100% DIFFERENT? Why are there still fish, snails , lizards...??? ALL OF WHICH we were "suppose to evolve from according to Darwin"....? WAKE UP!!! lol
@@CovertRadio Hey we found the crazy guy who didn't watch the video.
@@GlennDavey My brain stopped working at "what is this mysterious...".
@@ArchonChaos I skimmed the WHOLE thing..? lol. WHY is it so WILD!????? fish, snails, lizards? Apparently, quote-unquote People like You and Me need to WAKE UP!!!! lol
That is actually a good question.
I am baffled that there aren't any other technologically advanced species on this planet. Don't get me wrong. I don't want that. A scenario where we have competition would probably be like Planet of The Apes.
It is a good question , and one would surely not be too immature to ponder/wonder that given enough time why should not the Orangutans , the Gorillas , the Chimps etc etc evolve to a point where they should be able to understand the world of Shakespeare?
Because it's bs like a lot of stuff we're taught
There were other technologically advanced species. E.g., neanderthals, who we interbred and competed with until they ceased to exist as a separate species.
We (humans) are already a hybrid of hominids (such as Neanderthals)
Any other species capable of our level of development either was absorbed by or outcompeted by us hundreds of thousands of years ago
@@Set2Wumbo I was just going to say, ancient humans would just commit genocide against another sentient race if they were competitiors for resources. it wouldn't be labeled that of course, but that's what we'd do.
Hey Creationists:
According to Genesis, man was made out of dirt. Then why is there still dirt in the world?
Checkmate.
IF god made humans, why make the tree of knowledge? That's a dick move. -_-
Chasing Logic So he could give them free will in whether to obey or disobey him. That is giving them free will, which I personally enjoy, and so do almost everyone else.
Well since dirt isn't living, God had to make living things out of nonliving things since it is impossible otherwise. Then they reproduce. It's not that hard. Even though scientists and evolutionists say it may be possible, none of their tests prove life could begin on earth through nonliving things, or at all.
Because God only needed to make the first man and woman from dirt one time, which does not take up all of the dirt or land in the world. This is the origin of man, not the way every man comes to be.
Un-Checkmate
Julian Manjarres Thank you for proving yourself to be the usual ignorant Creationist that everyone laughs at. Go take a science class.
0:22 I thought he was going to say “why are you gae”
Lmao same I’m looking for this comment.
how racist of you
goddamn it i saw this comment just as he was saying 😂😂
@@thescott4340 how very racer of yous
@@nostur4984 it’s meme 😂
I am glad Dawkins added the bit about chimpanzees still evolving. Most people shut down the conversation by saying the ancestors evolved, not the chimps. That’s true for the past, but chimps, like all living species, are still evolving. We can’t say for sure whether we will be ancestors of new species, but it seems unlikely. Any selection pressure that would be sufficiently strong to cause it would probably take us out of the game.
Indeed , one day the Chimps shall also appreciate the cOmplete works of Shakespeare.
If that is true, then why did humans evolve to lose all of their body hair and then replace the lost hair with clothing made from the skins of animals? Even modern aboriginals wear clothing in even the hottest environments such as the Maasai. This is a question that “science” has yet to answer.
@@clairvoyantbear664 This is just a guess I pulled out of my ass. It probably has to do with sweating which allowed our ancestors to run and work in the equatorial heat longer without overheating while prey animals that can't sweat need to rest to avoid overheating. They could steadily chase prey to overheating and exhaustion making it an easy kill. Fur would decrease the effectiveness of sweating so it became an evolutionary advantage to have less hair.
Having clothes without actual need for them is a cultural thing, you can find tribes that don't wear much at all.
@@clairvoyantbear664 We evolved a lack of hair so sweat would evaporate easier, carrying away more heat when chasing down or tracking prey. Later on, humans developed clothing to not only make cold nighttimes more comfortable, but as they migrated into colder climates it became a necessity. That's why you'll find some tribes that forgo clothing except for over the genitals. They don't require it and their lifestyle actually promotes not wearing much, allowing for the sweat to carry away more heat.
@@clairvoyantbear664 Another theory is that evolution ditched the body hair to ditch the associated parasites. It’s easier to wash a deerskin fur than to constantly de-louse. Chimps spend hours de-lousing each other, time better spent browsing Netflix. Maybe there was selective evolutionary pressure to choose mates with less body hair, because it means you can spend more time at the pub. The big problem with the de-louse theory is that the perfect place for parasites to live is in the warm sweaty pubic area, exactly where body hair is retained. Evolution is the “just-so” theory that keeps giving. No doubt PhDs are being written right now, and undergraduates measured up, all to explain pubic hair on the hairless ape.
I seriously have a better understanding of evolution from this 1 minute video. So well explained.
Absolute rubbish makes no sense
@@eaglegummybears7112 A bit like having the name 'eagle gummy bears' then.
If chimp and human had the same ancestor first of all they wouldn't have so huge difference especially in brain development.Second of all being the same species we would be able to reproduce with a chimp.Like a wolf can reproduce with a dog.
@@ckmoto83 we're not the same species. We share a common ancestor. We share common ancestors with all animals, but diverged less recently than with chimpanzees. Whats unbelievable about there being a difference between human and chimpanzee brains?
@@ckmoto83 It's clear that you didn't even try to understand how evolution works
It's amazing how many people don't understand this simple principle.
+Mark Younger they dont want to understand. so u shouldnt be that amazed.
Mark Younger
Even more amazing is when Richard's extraordinary claims are accepted without extraordinary evidence.
I have never seen such a misapplication of Carl Sagan's quote. It is not just a claim but an obvious observation to anyone who is not blinded by an a priori belief system. Evolution by natural selection is so well established that only people completely ignorant of all science deny the way the real world works.
Mark Younger
He can't tell us anything about this "common ancestor". We must take his word for it. We must trust Richard on this. The chimpanzee actually FAILED TO EVOLVE and thus, remains a chimpanzee. Convenient, isn't it?
Roky Erickson rocks we must take a 2000 year old books word that a invisible man in the sky exists?
This is exactly the explanation you need to give when someone says, 'Do you really think we evolved from monkeys? '
@nelg3334pure retardation.
We evolved from monkeys and we are still monkeys. You don't evolve out of a clade. Dawkins' response is true but also a bit of a cop-out. It sounds nicer to say that chimps and humans are distantly related rather than to say we're both monkeys. We still have the same broken dna strand with other old world monkeys that prevents generating our own vitamin c.
No it’s not he sounded dumb and I would’ve got on he’s ass, you you a cousin of somthing but not related that’s like saying my cousins aren’t related to me.
We evolved from Apes not monkeys.
"Why Aren't Chimps Still Evolving Into Humans?"
Because they're too smart to trade down.
Yeah, some of their cognitive abilities such as short term memory really put humans to shame.... we keep thinking how we are special and better then other animals and we are not, not by much anyway.
You, Charlie...I like you. (o:Þ
@@NetAndyCz you think humans are not special compared to other animals???
@@Legendaryium Well, not any more special than other animals.
@@NetAndyCz oke, so a human who can go to the moon, have internet, spread across the whole globe, has tremendous intelligents. Is in your eyes not more special then a horse? how the hell does that even make sense to you? the fact that we are debating this makes us waaaaaaaaaaay more special then any other animal there is.
This comment section would be helpful to a scientific study on indoctrination.
(sigh) How many times has Dawkins had to repeat this? The problem is that preachers know this but that they deliberately keep lying to people.
About as many times as he needs to explain people how their belief is basically just a random chance as to where and to which parents are born or what a scientific "theory" is and how is different from a random idea you came up with sitting on the toilet.
It seems very tiresome
that's part of the problem. you'll be surprised how long it takes to educate people, even with modern technology. preaches and other religious people are just human. they're not smarter. in the ways, they're actually dumber. wadr.
brian janson
Nobody is asking Dawkins to repeat anything but merely to direct us to this common ancestor he is so certain links us to chimps. We could study it further if Richard could tell us where to find this creature. He must know, so why isn't he telling us?
brian janson oh right...it's the religious leaders that lie. Couldn't be Ricky D now could it?
Roky Erickson rocks we have Genetic Evidence
Whomever popularized the description that humans evolved "from" monkeys, caused a lot of confusion.
We evolved "with" monkeys, "from" the common ancestors that were neither monkeys nor human.
Who was common ancestor then?
We don't evolve 'with monkeys' were monkeys that evolved to suit the savannahs while chimps evolve to survive in a rainforest.Our savannah nature allowed us to walk upright and live in a communal egalitarian society instead of a strongman alpha male one like the chimps
@@seeing156im wondering the same
@@AnimalAlmightywhat people dont think about bro where did that common ancestor come from and next where did fish come from we didnt just come out of thin air im down to hear out science but in reality they cant answer that nobody has
@@threefromaco3848We can answer that. Every organism must of come from one common ancestor, and there must have been one last universal common ancestor.
The common ancestor came from organisms in the past, its that simple. Its hard to find the species of the common ancestor because there can be many candidates, and there were many many other species similar to them.
And the idea that life came non-life is not farfetched. Every organism is already made of non-living components. The term living is vague. If living meant to be capable of self-replication, many organic molecules are capable of doing so.
There have been countless studies mimicking early earth conditions which showed that the organic molecules that make up organisms can be made naturally.
If eve came from a rib... why are there still ribs.
if you lose arm or rib, your kids are not without them.
Cuz barbecue sauce
Didn't they used to say men had one less rib than women have? That the missing rib in men was the reason for that.
It was God that stole the rib.
Because God grew it back so that we would not suck our own cock making Eve redundant.
This man Richard Dawkins has godlike patience.
He does but he’s since given up on debating with creationists. “For the same reason a reproduction scientist doesn’t debate with an advocate of the stork theory”.
Just thinking about the line “Richard Dawkins has Godlike patience” quite amuses me.
@@souvikray40 I think that was the point...RAY.
godlike patience,do you mean there is a god?then this guy will lead many souls to hell.
Ha ha.
If beef comes from cows, why are there still cows?
Because the aliens like Rectal probing them and experimenting on them so they keep them around!
If you come from your parents, why are your parents are still alive ? DAN DAN DAAANNNNNN
Because there is a need for 🍔, but also a need for milk🥛.
TheMikeSwitch bad example because a cow is an animal meet is part of the animal but humans are not a peace of dead meat they are more smart than chimps so your example is very bad
Evolution is a myth and it requires as much believe as believe in unicorns
MoofEMP But an ANALogy nontheless.
Chimps evolved to better adapt to a jungle environment. Humans were on the savanna, and evolved to suit that environment. Walking upright and having 2 free limbs allowed for interesting genetic adaptations. The chimps *are* evolving...to become better chimps. Slowly. Very slowly.
If there are chihuahuas, why do wolves still exist? LOL
It's called breeding mate !
This line of logic is very normal for someone to think if they know very little about the science. This guy made a comment that a lot of people would naturally say if it didn’t make sense, Dawkins noticed this and explained it at level he could understand And it seemed he grasped it. This is what learning is about.
carol m a lot of people have misinformation and when they try thinking about it logically, it doesn’t make sense. Dawkins in this interview says at first a “chimpanzee like” creature was what we descended from, for people who don’t know the science this can sound like “descended from monkeys”. Unfortunately, this is what a lot of people think because they just don’t know any better. If that’s what you believe the scientists are saying, then the next logical thing you would wonder is why aren’t modern monkeys evolved. Dawkins then backtracked and clarified that the creature we descended from was neither human or chimp. It seemed like the guy finally grasped the concept after Dawkins explained it more clearly.
CHECK MATE SCIENCE
Lmfao!
You and your siblings, genetically close, have a common ancestor, viz, your parents.
You and your first cousins, genetically less close, have a more distant common ancestor, viz, your grandparents.
All humans are cousins, genetically even less close, with common ancestors way back in the past.
Yet humans are 99.5% similar genetically.
Humans and chimpanzees are 98% similar genetically, which means they have a common ancestor even further back, estimated to be about 7 millions ago.
But god hadn’t created the world at that point so how did they exist? Allah and Jesus only built the planet a few years ago you know! 😉
@@BASSER81 I don't think the Islamic creationist story is at all similar to the Christian one (I.e., 6,000 years ago).
@@ELYASELYAS I was joking. I don’t believe in any Gods.
@@BASSER81 OK. I was just being factual.
@@BASSER81 because god was a sussy baka, he was lying all the time. Almost like there was an impostor among them
Please, NEVER mock someone for asking a genuine question. Such mockery is one of the sure signs of a terrible teacher.
The question was genuine, and the answer brilliantly illuminating.
I politely beg to disagree. it is not so much that someone asks a genuine question. It is that the same question has been asked - and answered - a million times over. Nevertheless, creationist come forward and ask the question in a self-satisfied manner anew as if they just discovered something that would put the theory of evolution in its right place.
@@omnivorous65 Hi, thanks for the reply.
I didn't detect that manner from the questioner, if you did, well, we're all different!
However many times a teacher has heard a question, (and a good teacher never reveals to the questioner that she's heard it many times before) the questioner deserves a respectful answer in return for the interest shown.
A teacher who mocks or is sarcastic may deter any more questions, deter any more interest, and may sow the seed which ends up putting the pupil off education forever - just that one reply!
It's so sad when terrible teachers do that, but they do.
@@omnivorous65 Mm.
I’d love to hear your take on this. Why hasn’t any species, ever in the history of Earth, evolved to our level of intelligence? A more complex brain and higher intelligence would be a net gain for almost any species.
But, after humans who are discovering the nature of dark matter in the universe, the next smartest species is the Chimpanzee, who eats ants off a stick.
I’m sure you’ll say something like “different advantages in different areas”, but intelligence would just be a positive trait to evolve for any species over time. It makes no sense that rationality doesn’t naturally develop over any species over time - the smartest should, on average, survive better.
@@tonygardner5101 We tend to exaggerate the value of intelligence since we are an intelligent species and intelligence aided to our survival. But intelligence is enormously costly. Our brain consumes a freakish amount of energy even in a resting state. The big brain increases head size that makes giving birth in humans a dicey proposition. Our level of intelligence requires a really long development period, huge parental investments and on top of it - can be applied to warfare in ways that makes human conflict extremely costly.
There are lot of downsides to intelligence. Ultimately, the only criterion of evolutionary success is reproduction. And there are many other ways to achieve that. Quick reproductive cycles (think rodents or bacteria). Plenty of offspring. Adaptability. Resilience. It is quite likely that bacteria will survive us as a species by a wide margin. Or rodents. Or cockroaches.
Even if we make it into the distant future, it is highly unlikely that - as a species - we will do that in our current shape or form. If we develop strong AI we might be replaced by something of our own creation. Or we engage in genetical engineering and the result is a much different organism from us. So, tell me, how did intelligence benefit us at species level? If we don't make it, either by environmental destruction, nuclear war, etc. - again, is intelligence really that wonderful as a survival tool? One hypothesis why we have not encountered alien intelligence is the possibility that any civilisation capable of technology will eventually destroy itself.
@@omnivorous65 Not really, though. Considering humans have conquered virtually every single biome on the planet besides the deep sea.
And again - why not see any development there? Like at all? The rat is very resilient. A smart rat would be even more so. Unless you want to argue a smarter rat would start hanging themselves as a species, unable to handle the reality of creation? 😂
How do we know chimps are still evolving? What records have we kept over the last 10,000 years? Million years? 30 million years since the last major split? And why aren't there hundreds of splits right now with all of the billions of copies that humans have produced through natural copulation? There should be an absurd amount different styles of chimps at this point. We should be seeing many variations of human-like species. Like a spectrum of similar beings in between humans and chimpanzees.
They've proven it already by putting a type of lizard on two different islands in Croatia 30 years ago. Within several generations, the lizards on the island with carrion or small edible animals evolved a valve in their stomachs that assisted in digesting meat, while the other lizards did not evolve that adaptation. Same thing with moths becoming black in parts of Europe with acid rain causing dead trees while others remained white (they same species originally - genetically proven).
does this mean if we take apes and put them in a complex society, they can evolve too ? They tried this with the Kardashians. The experiment took a tragic turn. It ended up making a billion human viewers apes instead. Be careful of what you wish for
@@Jamie-js3qw "Evolve" actually means (in part) some apes kill other apes - both within their own species and other species of apes. Survival of the fittest meaning only the strongest survive.
So, we can try this with a monkeys, no? 😏
Everything is always evolving, that's how the fuckin thing works.
Yeah it is like asking why we do not see any transitional species now, there are some question that show how fundamentally some people do not understand what evolution is about.
Right! Planet of the apes, coming soon to a theater near you!
Why doesn't anyone take the explanation to the further point it needs to go to in order to be fully explained. The man asked why the chimpanzees aren't extinct as a result. While this is clearly a wrong assumption it gives an opportunity for a needed explanation. The common ancestor of both most likely was dying out due to natural selection. Certain gene mutations resulted in creatures with different traits that survived as a result of these new traits. Some of those gene mutations led to humans, others led to chimps. There were also most likely mutations that weren't successful so those creatures died off also. So the common ancestor died off because it didn't have the right traits. Since those mutations led to two creatures, man and chimps, that were successful then we still have them today. The original creature dying off from natural selection leads to new creatures whose mutations were successful in keeping them alive and breeding. Evolution does not work by killing off one kind of creature when another kind appears. It works by changing that creature when the original creature starts dying off. Natural selection doesn't work as a result of evolution. Evolution works as a result of natural selection.
Wesley Smith great explanation, thanks.
Good explanation. Here is some strong evidence of evolution.
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. This doesn't contradict that god couldn't have started it all, but it certainly contradicts the biblical telling.
2 The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. The more we search, the more this is proven. I guess some could think god has planted millions of fossils to fool scientists. One never finds dinosaur fossils with humans unless they were planted by someone as a goof or misleading "plant". When we find a particular dinosaur fossil, elephant, or a DeLorean car; it's always falls inside a certain historical timeline, and we know this by radiocarbon dating or radioactive decay of Isotopes verified repeatedly by scientist throughout the world.
3 Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we hared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to ow long ago our genetic lines diverged.
Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordate" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
4 Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial inoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.?
5 We have seen Evolution occur during the Industrial Age in England where black-peppered moths can hide in trees more easy than white moths and so after a generation there were most black moths . But the evidence in favor of natural selection (evolution) on peppered moths continued to accumulate. England and other countries cleaned up their air in the late 1900s, and trees went from dark to light. Now natural selection’s balance shifted: black moths became a liability. And, as you’d predict, the dark moths went from common back to rare again.
Evolution has tons and tons of evidence supporting it. All different fields of science like: Anatomy, Chemistry, Zoology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Taxonomy, Embryology, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Geology, ERV's and the Fossil Record all cross-confirms the theory of evolution independently.
6 Homologies. Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.
7 Vestigial Structures (This particular proof is not one of the strongest and there are flaws in the argument..) Vestigial organs (tonsils, third molars, appendix) have long been one of the classic arguments used as evidence for evolution. The argument goes like this: living organisms, including man, contain organs that were once functional in our evolutionary past, but that are now useless or have reduced function. More importantly, vestigial organs are considered by some evolutionists to be evidence against Creationism because they reason a perfect Creator would not make useless organs.
8 The incredible rate at which we're finding transitional fossils now that we're looking
9 the dating of the strata and the knowledge of mutation rates in species lead to conclusions that time after time, strongly correlate
10. Science using Radiocarbon dating works up to 50000 years and uranium lead Isotopes goes back much future to provide time and other radiometric isotopes the age of the earth and fossils and estimates the world began around 14 billion yrs ago, and the earth was formed from supernovas about 4.5 billion years ago. Radio dating and Isotopes are one of the strongest evidences that prove evolution because these tests are duplicated every waking hour by scientists
@@oppothumbs1 Another example are bacteria that have evolved the ability to digest nylon, which has been in existence for less than a century.
During the carboniferous era plants evolved the ability to produce lignin and suberin, so they could develop rigid structures and grow to unprecedented size. The problem was that no organism had the ability to break down these substances, so dead plants did not decay and the wood they produced accumulated. It took about 90 million years for organisms to evolve the ability to digest wood fibres, which is why so much coal was deposited during that era.
@@oppothumbs1 🙏🏾
@@wizardsuth 🙏🏾
Perfect example of what a discussion should be like.
I knew the answer to this question without even researching it. it's entirely elementary
I used the way dogs have a common ancestor to the wolf as a way to explain it to a Christian
And did the Christina get it?!
Seems like no matter how indepth I get they just don't get it!!!!
+Kallihan Kokernot I don't think it's a matter of "getting it". There are Christian scientists, you know. If there was something that truly contradicted Christianity and made it impossible, there would be no way a Christian scientist can exist. Sometimes I feel people think Christians are illogical blind lunatics. When the fact of the matter is, believing in a clearly perfectly designed universe that came to be through a matter of chance is absurd. The chances of everything turning out so perfectly like how it is now is so insanely small, it's quite ridiculous.
but our universe isn't perfect. I know you think that. But by no means are we doing effect beings in a perfect universe. It's just small minded to think that way.
+Kallihan Kokernot what is imperfect about it?
They teach you this in elementary. Religious people just like to play selective hearing similar to how they play selective verses, also known as, cherry picking.
Give an example. I personally think that atheist are the ones who cheery pick due to a lot of conversations
@@Fx_Explains religious cherry pick a lot
@@winterangel5048 I don't think so. Give reasons
@@Fx_Explains OK. The way Christians think about divorce today has nothing to do with what Jesus clearly said in Matthew 19:9. He was pretty clear. He stated that the only biblical reason to divorce is adultery. He did not mentioned any reason else. But Christians divorce today for many reasons beside adultery.
Another one the main activity of true Christians is evangelizing from door to door as Jesus did. He clearly COMMANDED Christians to do so in Matthew 24:14 and 28:18-20. But most Christians stay at home and think that reading the Bible is enough. In fact I am amazed that those who are preaching door to door are called cults (Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons). But the "official Christians " are not even following the main activity of their master. In fact they call themselves Christians while they are not even doing the basic thing (preaching work) a Christian is supposed to do. And there are many others cherry picking out there
@@winterangel5048 He didn't answer, suprise suprise.
"Uh huh. Yeah. Mm hmm."
That guy wasn't buying it for a second.
This is Dawkins at his finest. The patient teacher with a confused, but earnest, student.
I have to confess, I also asked myself this question...
...but then I got into first grade and my biology teacher told us.
These birds already had the genetic information for these beak differentials. They did not evolve within the lifetime of the observer. The peppered moth story is a great example of the same dynamics involved. Can natural selection explain these different genetic frequencies? Yes. Can NS account for how we got birds or any other creature in the first place? Absolutely not, & the limitations of NS as well as the refutation of the modern synthesis has been made explicit in the current literature.
Bingo! Only 8 years later I now know.
Yep, people frequently confuse evolution with abiogenesis
People: " If evolution is that good then why isn't there Evolution 2 "
He didn't answer his question. He asked: Why haven't chimps evolved into humans? and Dawkins dodged the question.
Do you even know him? He has debated and talked about evolution for hours. He is an expert in his feild. He doesn’t needs to dodge questions about the topic he is expert in.
This proves how little do you know about evolution. Evolution is a slow and gradual process. It takes millions of years. Every species evolves but we just can’t notice it because it happens so slowly. adult.
@@Abubakr10008
If chimps and us had the same ancestor millions of years ago, why did we change and became to what we are today, but chimps haven't changed? It's not like chimps are a recent species. They've been around for the same amount of time as us.
@@Abubakr10008 He dodged this one, cause he didn't know the answer.
Search on youtube "Richard Dawkins can't answer question" and see how he gives the same answer as in this video to a different question.
Seems like when he doesn't know how to answer a question, he gives the same answer to every question.
@@BerishaFatian chimps are changing, they have evolved the same way we did, but in a different direction
You can believe evolution is not true, but the whole "why are there still chimps" is perfectly coherent with what evolution says
“That Dawkins character can’t tell me I evolved from no damn monkeys!” 😂
He did say that our common ancestor was neither human or chimpanzee.
Sam D, to which I agree wholeheartedly. My comment was designed to illustrate the absurdity of the beliefs often espoused by creationists.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@samd2013 so what exactly were they? Is there an extinct species that we have found?
@@keriwilliams8980 Of course there are extinct species of hominid yet to found, but those fossils tend to be rare. We'll find more, but who can say what their importance will be?!
Responding to some comments I read here: Evolution in no way implies that the original species must die down once its better suited mutations appear. Both the evolved and un-evolved may continue to prosper in different geographies, or maybe even in the same area if resources aren't lacking.
It's called survival of the fittest, dumb ass.
More like survival of the good enough
I don't think evolution can go backward. Mayne re-evolved might be more what you ar looking for
Evolution is fake if it were true the world would be in total chaos you people are dumb for believing this is all by chance makes zero sense whatsoever
@@1sgr1999 Please try to outgrow your ignorance. You’re here claiming that 99% of the worlds scientists are “dumb”. Please realise how daft that makes you sound
This question is what comes out of young kids with no concept of the time and change involved. I remember thinking there was probably chimps in hospital losing their hair and having their jaws flattening out etc and learning to speak because someone told me chimps were still evolving. Lol
both sides are respectable and a gentleman wishes to learn, asked a very crucial and interesting question, while the other teaches and they both listen to each other. Very wholesome and exemplar.
Biggest problem here is that no matter how much true evidence is shown, It will never be enough to satisfy people who believe in a God. They are blind to the truth because they have faith.... and they really really want to believe that when they die there is something more
Yes unfortunately religious people just can’t accept that they are mortal and are not destined to live forever like gods. Sad egotism.
truth and CONCLUSIONS, the latter is a lot stronger to people
you didn't show any evidence though, you believe in some bullshit magical story and expect everyone to believe it? you're an idiot dude
Confirmation bias for sure
I’m a Christian, for me personally I don’t really care much about an afterlife per say. The thing that made me give Christianity a chance was knowing that there was someone above me who had authority and wanted the best for me. It was knowing that the reason why my life was so miserable was because I believed I was unable to control my life and be free of suffering. Once I accepted that God was the divine authority I have e up the reigns and let the Lord guide me. Knowing that even though I felt so alone and hopeless there was a God who loved me more then I could ever love myself moved me beyond words.
As a Christian I generally disagree with Dawkins' views as well as his methods. But here he did a great job of explaining why that particular question makes no sense from the scientist's perspective. I also think it's cool that he didn't act like a jerk to the guy for asking him that.
I was also happy to see that Dawkins wasn't combative this time. The question I have for you is why do you disagree with the views of Dawkins? Being a Christian isn't a universal reason since many Christians accept evolution and the Darwin-Wallace theory explaining the process.
Because humans never evolved from chimps in the first place. That’s like saying my cousin gave birth to me.
We have a common ancestor.
"That's like saying my cousin gave birth to me"
I mean, that does happen xD
You sound a bit too factual giving your opinion on an opinionated theory lol
@@raez9424 Evolution by natural selection is a biological fact, not opinion.
We are part of the primate family.
The same way sharks are part of the fish family. Doesn’t mean all these different fish species will turn into sharks.
His objection In a few words "Why is there more than one branch on a tree...surely the other branches would have become extinct?" Sigh...Jesus wept.
Most branches on the tree of life are extinct, it not an ignorant assumption.
We are sooo used to instant gratification that many believe the transformation occurred overnight instead of over millions of years and therefore each iteration change is nearly indistinguishable.
It’s amazing how many people don’t understand that evolution isn’t intrinsic knowledge you’re born with, and the fact he’s asking questions and listening is a good thing
Your comment is pretty recent, so I’ll just tack this take onto yours.
The gentleman here was asking the wrong question. The evolutionary process leads to the genetic outcome that yields the highest success in nature; considering humans have pretty much taken over the entire planet, why is there not a single species, in the history of Earth, that has even remotely approached our intelligence?
Are they just unlucky? Because, over time, it would seem to me that a larger brain and higher intelligence would be a net gain for almost any species. But after us, the next smartest is a monkey that eats ants off a stick.
You don’t find that curious?
@@tonygardner5101 intelligence is not the end goal of evolution, and the biological parts making the "decisions" about whether to evolve left or right, simplistically, have no knowledge of the planet/other species/intelligence, it's just what will make me able to keep on reproducing
@@tonygardner5101 there is no "wrong question" not all people have the same knowledge as other, i believe there is a lot of people who believe in evolution didn't even know that piece of information, too many people treat knowledge as a given things (oh you didn't know these things? At this age?, what a dumbass) and treating it as a social status looking down at others with less knowledge instead of helping them and answering the question, or worse punching them down
@@tonygardner5101 humans have taken over the world with our technology, but thats not why evolution evolved big brains. Big brains are expensive, so if you arent getting anything out of them right now, they are a big problem to have. You cant afford to wait thousands of years for your brain to develop tech and pay itself off, you need a big advantage right now.
In our case I heard some theories say that our big brains evolved to be able to make and mantain bigger tribes, and run simulations of what might happen if we do something before doing it, and technology came as a happy accident out of that
So most animals dont evolve their brains further, because the beneft they will give by getting a tiny bit smarter are too small to be worth the extra cost
@@tonygardner5101 it's quite simple, you don't need intelligence to be succesful. Ants have spread around the world and seen millions of species disappear, for millions of years. We on the other hand probably won't last not even a fraction of their existence. So muchbfor a big brain, at least you can use it to watch clips here
I find it so odd that he doesn't understand the concept of simultaneous existence by way of divergence. Not everyone and everything mutates in the same way or all at the same time. If it worked the way he is assuming, there would only ever be one species of life on the planet, which is unsustainable at the very instance it happens. What...is it about some people that makes it so difficult to comprehend that?
He explains it so simply, love it
I agree with the other guy. Chimps have been eating the same food and breathing the same air as us.
Wtf is taking them so long? You think they would have come up with at least an alphabet by now
@@Bee-tj8gc Did you even watch the video... We are not from chimpanzees, we share a common ancestor. Smh
@@Chris-lp8mz did you read my comment? I'm not saying we came from chimps
@@Bee-tj8gcI read your comment and you still don't get it then. Let me explain. Why do you mention chimps had to learn the alphabet by now when you know we aren't from them? So there's no reason why they should know the alphabet. You want to make a correlation between us and chimps when you know we're both from the common ancestor. Now the factors as to why some evolved into humans and some evolved into chimps I'm not quite sure. I need to read more about this myself. They evolved into chimps not humans and thus will not know the alphabet.
@@Chris-lp8mz they don't know any alphabet and haven't invented one because aren't intelligent like we are. Not because they aren't human..
It's same reason they still need to hide in trees from lions.
Dawkins: Evolution works the way I say it does.
Great response!
That's what I got out of this.
Best answer I have ever heard for that question was another question:
"If Americans came from the English, why are there still English people?"
What a stupid response… shows you are just an evolutionary sheep..😏
Stupid response, bad analogy.
Nobody claimed that the English are naturally evolving into American citizens.
@@abhmd4481 An analogy compares relationships. The relationship between humans and chimps is like the relationship between the US and Britain. They come from a common ancestor, and over time they developed differences. 🎉 Analogy 🎉
Apes have literally been proven to be in the stone age. They will not look like humans but by the time they evolve fully, they’ll have the same mindset as one of us.
no they aren't. also there's no "fully" evolved and evolution doesn't occur just to occur. the reason we are so smart is because of the hostile environments which drove our evolution
As someone who hasn't studied biology since 10th grade, this clarifies a lot.
They’ve never found a true missing link
@@heythere6983 so iam guessing your a evolutionary biologist.
But it was wrong. I'm sorry.
@@heythere6983 And THAT is the one hurdle they can not get over.
And never will.
Why?
Because there is no Missing Link.
If there was then surely it would have been found by now.
You can not find anything that is non-existent.
@@darrenplumpton9737 Please visit the natural history museum in NY. You could use some serious education on the subject.
Asking why chimps "aren't evolving into humans" is like asking why horses aren't evolving into Zebras. All evolution requires is reproduction, heritable variation, and natural selection. It does not have a direction, it only describes development.
Or like asking "If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still europeans."
Or like : If Christianity came from Judaism, why are there still Jews?
fanirama Exactly... good answer.
fanirama That's a great way to brake it down to theists lol!
SpaceTimeMachine do Zebra's and Horses have a common ansestor?
Evolution does not mean every species turns into humans. To think of yourself as the absolute pinnacle of evolution (or creation) is actually the absolute pinnacle of arrogance.
Good question and fine answer.
My next question is why is there not something with a close amount of intelligence.
Dolphins and crows are supposed to be the next smartest animal to humans.
@@4realjacob637 One might argue that already kind of happened as several different forms of humans were on Earth at the same time (like the Neanderthals) but only one prospered. It is my personal opinion that only one intelligent species can exist on a planet as it would take over the planet making difficult for other forms of intelligence to rise. Alternatively (or in addition to it) one should consider that it might take million of years for that kind of intelligence to evolve therefore intelligent species on the same planet if at all possible might be separated by enormous amounts of time
I'm glad that there are videos like this one. I knew about evolution but I've never ask myself those questions before. Now I feel more educated. Thank you for it!
It's a question I have always pondered. Nice to see it simply and clearly explained.
In truth, this is historical science, and therefore conjecture.
There’s no proof of these theories, and this is a religious exposition.
I acknowledge his religious dogma: _everything came from nothing by accident and intelligent life evolved from pondscum_
But I do *not* respect it.
@@h2w25 No proof except the extensive fossil record nearly perfectly showing the exact evolution he described. Also the DNA analysis proving we are more similar to chimpanzees than any other species.
@Zane Durante yes indeed , but your subtle sarcasm is beneath you , you understand?
@@sirbarnabyst.johntoffingto9017 yeah I was a little frustrated after reading the comment but you are right it’s a little too sarcastic-I’ll get rid of the last line. Won’t change anyone’s mind by being combative 👍
@@zanedurante3709 but do you think that science is all powerful?
Richard Dawkins response to creationism. (Paraphrased)
"I can't prove the big bang is true because it defies all known laws of physics but I definitely know it wasn't God who created to universe even though I can't offer any proof."
The Big Bang theory supposedly originated from the creation story of the Kabbalah, so it's possible he's defending religious texts when he talks about the Big Bang. Also, the idea was put forward by a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, so I'm sure that pissed Dawkins off.
We don't know shit about the Big Bang, hence it being one in a sea of theories. Evolution is different by every possible metric; we have direct evidence of how creatures change and mutate to suit different environments. and while Evolution is credited as a theory, it is the absolute most widely accepted one due to this.
Although modification happens, the transition from one kind to another has never been demonstrated. As such the theory of evolution can never credibly claim to have produced the diversity of life we see on earth.
absolutely....
dawkins would say well complete change in species happen over million years, BS....
make a virus into a bacteria or a bacteria into a fungus, they evolve pretty rapidly, that is a very simple way to change everyone's mind isn't it....
@@drdhakan87 Yeah that's one bacteria or one virus, but animals and plants are composed with billions and trillions of bacteria. Evolution occurs through millions of years, it really does take a long ass time.
@@angrygopnik2317 thats another way of saying we can't prove anything...
same as creationist say we can't show u God....
but u can collect triilions of bacteria and viruses in a lab and let them divide, an animal can theoretically take millions of years but single celled organism should take lot less than that to show u decent proof of evolution
but no one has done that, cz they cant....
@@drdhakan87 he could say that but we could also say, until you demonstrate it happening, you can't say that it does happen. He would ask no less of believers when it comes to God.
@@andrewdaly21 yes true
so i dont understand when athiest pretend that they have definitive proof of what they say....they don't, plus they cant disprove the existence of God...so this charade that they are scientific and believe in facts and analytics its all BS, they're just following a new religion blindly....
This is certainly a better explanation than my 4th grade teacher gave me. "Is it possible that Chimps could eventually evolve to something more like humans?"
"No"
like the black adder lord flash heart? to be fair a 4th grade teacher was probably as clueless as the students but he was right non the less as its well known humans never evolved from apes..
Not on my gods green flat Earth where everything happened because it was good. These people and their facts supported by evidence. If things go their way we'll have to think logically and that's a big no no in gods plan
It’s funny you are saying this without looking at any of the thousands of Christian writers who discuss logic. Look up St. Augustine the Bishop of Hippo.
I highly recommend Mr. Dawkins book The Greatest Show On Earth. Clears-up the whole intelligent design falsehood.
If there is no intelligence designer, then here there is no intelligence.
Christians can only read a fucked up comic book
@@saymyname8925 When the debate is lost, insult is the tool of the loser.
@@saymyname8925 Well since i am not the one posting insulting comments about others just because i disagree with their beliefs, i don't see how you work that one out.
@@stephencohen575 you said he was a loser. Ergo a backhanded insult. Silly sausage
All dogs evolved from wolves and we still have wolves. He may as well have asked; "If I evolved from my parents, why are my parents still alive"?
Modern Wolves aren't ancestors of dogs, but their cousins
I used to ask my self this question too, but came to the same conclusion. We aren't a direct descendent of the ape, we shared a cousin with the ape who evolved into us.
No… we shared an ancestor to the ape, and the ape is our cousin
No, we are APES, Great Apes to be specific. Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutangs, etc. all descend from some pre-Ape ancestor. So therefore, since we are cousins with chimps and gorillas, we are by virtue, also apes. You are an ape or a hominid, as it known in Latin. You are also technically an Old World Monkey, a primate, a mammal, a reptilomorph, a tetrapod, a lobe-finned fish, etc. ALSO if you didn’t know, birds are technically dinosaurs.
TLDR, not only are you an ape, you are a fish as well.
We are apes
Aren't we nephews to the dogs and nieces to the cats also?
I thought atheists were more logical than theists, but I was totally wrong.
@@mosmas66 You have just completely disproven your point. You obviously don't understand the concept lmao
Creationists be like: "If I evolved from my parents, how come they are still alive? Check mate atheists"
well if ur parents gave birth to a gorilla and u then that would prove Dawkins point...have they?
Love his tone where he thinks he’s found a hole in the theory of evolution! If you’re going to disagree with a theory, you should at least understand what theory is in its most simple form. This guy is an utter time waster.
Its kinda funny how some people pronounce it EVIL-ution. I have no problem with it but people who already think evolution is evil can point at that and say “look! See I told you it’s evil!” Haha
This is actually the best explanation for those struggling to understand evolution. An explanation for dummies if you will.
And there's me thinking WHERE'S the evidence?
A man who made millions from teaching and talking about "evolution" can't provide evidence for evolution but is hoping the public will just take uncle Richard's word for it.
LMAO!
@@bigbabatunde1218 Really hope this is a troll
@@pgrothschild Deflecting when you could be posting that alleged evidence. 🙄🤦
@@bigbabatunde1218 So you weren't trolling. Are you ignorant of the fossil record and geology? What are your reasons for disproving that?
Yep, it’s certainly for dummies… evolution is still..’theory’.. there are countless living organisms that are still the same as in the past… and yet Dawkins cannot explain the simple fact how cold blooded animals evolved into warm blooded animals and why warm blooded animals (whales) did not evolve into the cold blooded sea creatures more suited to their environment.. 😏
I think the average chimp would be shocked to find out how dumb the average human really is. We truly are a species which stands on the shoulders of giants. The same can be said for modern day intellects. I’m convinced If you remove the top 1% of our brightest intellects our species would crumble. lmfao
Let's hope we never have to find out. Tragically, however there could be several potential test cases in the world where many of the brightest left the country, aka brain drain, leaving the rest to carry on.
I LIKE OWLS.
I don't think it's really 'patience' that Dawkins is showing, but rather an incredible ability to communicate in a clarifying kind of way. Best explanation ever, and he should have been there dispelling misinformed notions when those 19th century newspaper cartoonists were idiotically criticizing Darwin. Even our contemporary archetypal animate meme showing the rise of man still incorporates the fallacy that Dawkins is putting to bed.
Take your patronising, racist ramblings somewhere else please.
You assume the guy in front of him is dumb?
Why is that?
I do t think that Dawkins would have been able to explain it better than Darwin in the 1800’s.
Q: Why aren't you still being born from your cousin? A: I wasn't born from my cousin, we just share a common ancestor in our grandparents.
Q: OOOK SO if you and your cousin share the same grandparents, why does your cousin still exist? A: 😲
Makes no sense when you put the questions like that.
To be honest, I never really understood it until now
Even if this is how it works, why can't they develop consciousness, or walk in a more erected manner? I thought it was something random. And another question, what happened to our common ancestor? Why did he disappear but chimpanzees didn't?
Excellent questions.
Luck.
Humans don't come from monkeys! Wake up! They just don't want you to believe in god! Darwin was a eugenics and in favor of sterilizing undesirables! Wake up!
The earth isn't billions of years old like they claim! Dinosaurs didn't exist! God created the world in 6 days! Science is all lies
@@fuhrergoyim6579 *aliens
A monkey can micro evolve into another monkey species, but what about macro evolution from kind to kind?
macroevolution is the product of microevolution over a long period of time
Imagine you're in a room and you're in the back of it, and I said you were only allowed to leave using micro steps. Would you declare it impossible since each step can only bring you ever so slightly away from your starting point?
I expected him to give a reply "y r u gae?"
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, Dawkins is a fool!
Are you a scientist?
AMEN!!!!!!!
Why would the same environmental situation cause 2 drastically different evolutionary responses/branches from the same species, at the same time?
Good point Andrew. I will admit I'm not an evolutionary scientist but as I understand it; Environmental conditions are what typically cause evolutionary changes to occur. For example, at some point a creature that was not able to see kept bumping into things, falling off high places, getting killed by things that could see/sense movement, so it would've developed some type of sensory equipment that would help it detect its surroundings before it physically encountered them/was killed by them... So if the common ancestor of us and apes encountered a need to upgrade why did it split off into two directions, one that seems intellectually advanced while the other seems physically advanced in some ways but seriously lacking in its overall intellect. Additionally would this ancestor have been "inferior " to both of its evolutionary offspring? If so what is this ancestor of ours? Have they found evidence of it or is it simply a theory? I have presupposed that you know more than I do about the theory of evolution.
It doesn't have to be the same environment, species move to new habitats all the time.
@@harvesterofeyes8813 it sounds like you know exactly where homo sapiens and chimpanzees each evolved independently
@@harvesterofeyes8813 along with the gorilla, orangutan, howler monkey, and all the tiny monkeys
@@andrewmorse2181 Different niches exist within the same area. Smaller monkeys with prehensile tails live in the taller branches of trees where it is safer. Large apes live on the forest floor.
To ask such a question one would have to start from a profound position of ignorance about evolution and how it works.
you mean to be smart right? and not be a gullible idiot
@@shadygaming6523 what?
@@muchanadziko6378 what what?
Richard Dawkins will always be remembered as a brilliant scientist not an atheist.
He will be remembered as the Al Gore of atheism i.e. you wonder if he was planted by the other side, just to make his beliefs sound sillier.
If evolution is a fact, then it explains how Noah managed to put so many animals in his Arc? 😁
you better ask Ken Ham of the Ark Experience that question.
he has the wildest theories about it.
He figured it all out, but hasn't tackled to problem of the enormous amoung of methan gass collecting in a badly ventilated boat of a year time, without the Ark exploding the moment madame Noah made breakfast.
He may be misguided with his religious faith, but I give this man credit for at least being willing to politely listen...he seems like he actually wants to LEARN from Dawkins.
So Richard Dawkins just explained that human beings were NEVER descended from chimpanzees. What's next? Is he going to say that Jesus was the Son of God? ☺ thanks Richard!
Yes, because that is correct. No scientist ever said we were descended from chimps. It is a common misconception. We share a common ancestor, that's it.
talking to a chimp about this topic was a bold strategy indeed
I’m 29 and I just the aha moment….this ⬆️ thank you! No one ever gave me the rest of the explanation. Awesome
I have often wondered why fish aren't evolving into birds right before my eyes. Like, if birds were once fish, then it stands to reason that I should have seen at least one fish turn into a bird.
I suspect you're simply not devoting enough time to this. My recommendation is that you watch fish closely for 12-14 hours a day. Then your chances of seeing one suddenly transform into a bird will be greatly increased!
@@glennmartin9043 LOL!
Drop some Acid. That should do the job!
Great to see Richard Dawkins talking about a point of convergence. So, empirically, do we know at what point we became human?
You can read about early humanoids. I'm not sure there's any agreement on when we started being human.
@@nicolab2075 yes so whatever old Richie said here is based on blind belief. Thank you, Nicola, for confirming!👍🏼
@@kashankhan6950 Religious stupidity as expected. Reading nothing about evolution but still spreading bullshit. There are Paleontological ,genetic, biological and fossil evidence of evolution. If you don't believe in science leave this youtube and stuffs like this because internet is created by science not by religious stupids.
@@annadasankar7356 the amount of ignorance in your rant…is too damn high!
@@kashankhan6950 We know how religious states works Afghanistan,Iran,Saudi Arabia etc. There is no ignorance to state the fact here in case evolution is a fact which can't be understood by some dumb religious books which say you will go to heaven and get white virgin woman in milk bath after death if you kill people for your religion. Isn't that more ignorant? Can you give evidence?
“We can’t predict where that will go”
Me: are you sure about that!😉
This guy is full of assumptions…
This theory is the only thing atheists have to really hold onto
Now ain’t that the truth. They require something to fill the void of the abyss! It is really dark and lonely in there so they need converts to join them in the illusion.
Just like Christianity is the only thing christians must hold on to
@@dipanjanghosal1662 Christianity is man made just like “all” religions.
What’s your point?
@@dipanjanghosal1662 nope.. it’s the truth.. ur just not willing to accept it as it’s “inconvenient” to you..
And you’ve been raised with a worldview of atheism/agnosticism
@@henrydaley1255 it’s not man made though…
It’s real.. Christ is real.. all it is real..
People just don’t give Him a chance..
Too afraid…
If you believe in something false like “the great spaghetti monster” you simply won’t get a manifestation/effect…
Once I read a book (trying to remember the name, something about dog illusions, it will come to me) and understood natural selection, it was like a light bulb moment. I looked around at nature, and it was suddenly so obvious. But I think a lot of people have a casual idea of mutations, like an animal one day gives birth to the next evolution of species, or "Lamarckian" ideas about animals who use their muscles a lot will give birth to stronger babies. It's great they don't deny reality, but it would be even better if inheritance, hormone expression, gene populations, natural selection, etc could become "household" knowledge.
It is amazing how beautiful and simple the theory of evolution is. The technical details are complicated, but other than that it is just two things.
1) Random Mutations
2) Selective Pressure (natural selection, sexual selection)
Not much more to it, sure there is genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium and more, but those are small details in the big picture. The important thing is that organisms respond to their surroundings and selective pressures, there is no end goal. And speciation happens when population splits and different selection pressure is applied... Why so many educated people cannot grasp this simple concept? Still have not heard anyone refute evolution and demonstrate they actually know what it is about.
Im just a freshman biology student but i like how succinctly you said everything we saw about evolution
Refute evolution? It's easy, just ask for an evidence for the common ancestors, you can't ask people to refute a theory which you can't even prove.
@@abhmd4481 You do not prove theories;) But that is why I added the secaond clause. It is easy for people who have no idea.
I try to give my explanation. In evolution, there is such a rule that one certain species can appear only once. It can be compared with the fact that a certain person can be born only also once. The question "if humans evolved from apes, why then didn't other apes evolve to humans" is no different from "if my mother gave birth to me, why didn't other women give birth to me?"
Evolution can only make species that is similar to another one, for example, dolphins are similar to fish. It is callef convergent evolution. So the question "why didn't other apes become similar to humans?" can be answered by that they lived in another environment than ancestors of humans. They have adaptations needed for their environment. People have adaptations needed for their environment
So we are descendants of something else and that mystery being is extinct. From that one mystery being, two different species was produced, cousins too boot....They are cousins, but can not reproduce. Last time I checked cousins could reproduce...They do it all the time in Arkansas. But really...This evolution shit is not the issue. We all know evolution is credible and explains a lot about the way things are now in all life forms. What I don't understand is why religion has to be the topic of discussion in this debate. Although science has brought to light some astonishing findings, it still can't answer the million dollar question. Science can only go so far. Science demands facts...Here is a fact for you...This universe function by designee and if you have designee it would require a designer.....Dare I call it God?
"Here is a fact for you" followed by a claim that is not a fact.
Good one
I fucking love this man
Sounds like a story. Maybe it's true. Pretty amazing that from a big bang, a lot of biological units evolved e.g. Tigers, elephants, dolphins, apes, humans etc. Wunderbar!!
The big bang and the theory of evolution have nothing to do with each other.
Human Beings have 98% the same DNA as a Chimps and 95% like a Gorilla meaning they claim Chimps are more like us than Gorillas
@@alkohnest The Big Bang has to do with everything
@@danieljoseph369 No. The validity of neither theory is predicated validity of the other. If evolution were to be disproven today, it would have no impact on the big bang theory and vice versa.
What's your point about the shared DNA? We share common ancestors with both chimpanzees and gorillas. Our common ancestor with gorillas was further back than the one with chimps. So what?
@@alkohnest I don't think Human Beings are more similar to Chimp than a Gorilla is to Chimp
The issue is people arrogantly think that being human is some pinnacle of achievement and that evolution means "smarter" and that really means they don't understand how evolution works.
the reason people think that is because we are the only species to actually achieve the intelligence that we have evolved to have
Respect to Dawkins for patiently and calmy answering his questions
Yeah and it's bullshit. You guys cling to this shit while scientists are still baffled over how the universe was created. Scientists are even beginning to realise maybe there is something fine tuning the universe. You're an in the box thinker and always will be with your science.
@@ViolentGenius Science is evolving while your religion is stuck in the past. Without science you wouldn't have been able to write your stupid comment.
There are some or over 4,300 religions in the world but none of them have ever shown/proven their God or Supernatural beings.
I mean they literally think they came from apes. You got to be dumb to believe that
@@jeCktHeReal sure. Because a sky daddy seems to be more realistic
@@bckstrm4607 the burden of proof is on y'all and it will be until you turn to God - then you would already know.
Why would nature cause the removal of fur, only to have the human species have to create a fur substitute like sweaters and jackets? Wouldn't we have been better with fur?
+pigjubby1 If you were really interested in the answer, you would look it up for yourself. Instead you chose to imply that humans never had body hair with a loaded, passive aggressive question.
Passive-agressive, and body hair. That's me!
There's a theory why we lost most of our hair and it says that because of travelling our bodies could have gotten too warm so we lost our hair and sweat can better get into the clouds from the skin. You see my english is not the best so just google it
Yeah, that's why there are so many hairy Middle Easterners in hot areas and so many hairless in cold Scandinavia.
+pigjubby1
You said how the invention of clothing actually renders the body hair thing meaningless - so much about Scandinavia. Middle Easterns have no particular benefit from having less hair. Also body hair has an purpose (e.g. it increases sensibility or scent transmission). In regards to that there is this thing called "sexual selection" which makes this even more complicated.
Next time you want to see something that makes no real sense to you, you could just look at male nipples or your appendix (assuming you live in a first world country). They are in the same league as body hair.
Dawkins is a very smart fool. The real important question is the one Jesus posed to his followers, "who do you say I am?" Answer that one correctly and you're one giant step closer to a true understanding of where we came from.
Lol wut!?
Jesus never had an original thought. All his philosophy came from others who preceded him.
I think the worst part about Jesus was how he threw a hissy fit when a fig tree didn't give him fruit on the off-season.
What a spaz.
He asked a question that people who haven't thought about how evolution works often ask: Why isn't everything evolving to a "higher" level of existence? Why are there still so many dumb creatures rather than only smart ones? Laypeople have a feeling that there must be a general direction for evolution, like a guiding desire to reach a higher state of being, which is why "intelligent design" is popular among religious people who are trying to come to terms with evolutionary arguments. He is asking "Why haven't chimps evolved into humans, why haven't they become more perfect?"
Of course, evolution doesn't work to perfect anything, or achieve progress, or reach a superior manner of existence. Evolution creates organisms capable of filling ecological niches that are available, that's all. Depending on the niche, the evolved solutions (i.e. species) may be more or less complex. There is a an ecological niche (i.e. a place and a potential way of life) for a large, high-IQ creature like a human, there is a place for an oak that lives off the sun, then there is a place for a squirrel that eats the acorns and a place for a mosquito that feeds on the squirrel and on the human. Evolution does not push creatures to become greater, smarter, bigger or more imposing, it just blindly generates things that can survive, somewhere, somehow. As long as there enough acorns and not too many mosquitos (i.e parasites and predators) there is a place for squirrels to live. Squirrels and chimpanzees don't want to be human when they grow up.
Yeah but where did everything come from? As I understand, Once upon a time, long, long ago, so far back our brains can't actually perceive or quantify the value applied, nothing existed, not even empty space because that would be something. Then suddenly out of the nothing, something, somehow came into existence. It seems like it exploded, but somehow possesses qualities not at all like any demonstrable repeatable in a lab explosion, having regularly occurring rotations and spiraling etc., this something is still expanding in every direction at a rate much more massive than we can measure, at the presumed edge of this something is logically nothing, which doesn't make sense because how can something exist where there is nothing to exist in? I'm just wondering.
Second question, you posit that evolution blindly generates things that can survive somewhere somehow. This sounds a little like a directed force of some kind, rather than a process that simply happens. Why does evolution generate things that can survive somehow but we see that quite often these things cannot survive. For example dodo birds died off. They existed for some period of time. Yet they now do not, except in history. Is this a relevant question?
@@Guzmudgeon If you want to discuss cosmology, you need to talk to a cosmologist. I am a geneticist, so I'll stick to explaining evolutionary theory.
@@Guzmudgeon Evolution works by accumulation of random mutations followed by natural selection. Yeah, obviously, things survive for a while and then with random changes in the environment, many of them don't. There is no external force, just conditions in the environment that let some things thrive while others die. It's so obvious it sounds too obvious to be a good explanation, which is why a lot of people feel they need more complicated explanations. But a good explanation doesn't need to sound smart, or emotionally satisfying, or intuitive, it just needs to correctly predict what happens.
Actually my friend who studied science explained to me about this in the same manner in 11 Standard when I asked the same question haha what a coincidence.
they read the same book