Darwin Day Questions: Is Evolution a Fact?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 мар 2015
- Richard Dawkins answers your questions about evolution in honor of Darwin Day 2015.
"...it isn’t a theory that the earth moves around the sun it’s a fact we can observe, evolution is not”
Edited by Stephanie Renee Guttormson
Copyright 2015 Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
I cannot observe yesterday, I guess it never happened, I cannot observe tomorrow, I bet it will never come.
1. nobody is saying there is no time
2. Without proof you would not be able to prove what you did yesterday, thats why you have to prove things in science and in court
3. There will be a day where tomorrow doesnt come, so its indeed not a fact
@@NjoyMoney evolution is not fact, it is based 100% on a foundation of 7 basic assumptions that have never been proven as fact and never will be..
This should be a one-second video of Dawkins looking at the camera and saying "yes"
But that would be disingenuous and incorrect.
Creationist start with the conclusion and try to make the data fit their bias.
Cosmologist, geologist and biologists etc. all work opposite to the creationist method.
Yet what is your answer to how did the big bang start? So we start at the end, and where do you start, the middle. You guys just skip over the beginning then when you start going into anything regarding the universe or whatever you have already accepted evolution as fact and the (big bang). Just sayin
We don't try, that is what your side does. Still a theory with no proof
@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes huh?
@@myname9856 What Is A Theory With No Proof?
Creation Or Evolution!?
Because I Can Assure You That Both Creation AND Evolution Have VALID PROOF!!!
@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes ok, show me proof for evolution... I'll wait
seriously, this alternating camera thing isn't working, so please stop trying. As for the rest, thumbs up as always.
It looks like they got the message the first time. I'm going to take a leap and say this was most probably shot the same day as the last one, so all they could do was try to fix it in the editing and resolve to correct their methods next time they film a batch of these.
Felix Nielsen But what will we do with these extra tripods?? :P
Felix Nielsen Just shut the fuck up about the camera you dumbfuck.
LmOver I seems clear who should do what you just proposed, so please do.
554466551 I noticed that myself - props to them for making improvements based on our criticisms :)
Would watching bacteria mutating to overwhelm an antibiotic count as watching evolution??
You mean becoming resistant to an antibiotic? Yes, that is evolution.
***** so we can actually watch evolution in a petri dish...
*****
Yes, we can watch it in a petri dish.
The long-term e.coli Lenski experiments do just that with e. coli that started all from the same stock and were grown for tens of thousands of generations in different environments.
***** so why does almost every yotube-atheist/evolutionist tell people asking for evidence that you can't see evolution directly? A timelapse of a petridish should suffice!
*****
They're referring to the creationist's plea to witness a bigger change, like a land mammal turn into a whale. That's not an observable change because that takes far, far more than one generation to see.
If you can find a single atheist/scientist that doesn't think the Lenski experiments demonstrate evolution though, I'll eat my shoes with A1-sauce.
Evidence for evolution:(this list is not exhaustive, please feel free to add anything I missed)
1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
2 Evidence from Genetics
3 Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns
4 Evidence from DNA sequencing
5 The fossil record
6 Evidence from Pseudogenes
7 Evidence from observed speciation
8 Evidence from Chromosome 2 in humans
9 Evidence from comparative anatomy
10 Nested hierarchies and classification
11 Evidence from homologous structures and divergent evolution
12 Evidence from Vestigial structures
13 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
14 Evidence from Atavisms
15 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
16 Evidence from Arthropod appendages
17 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
18 Evidence from Route of the vas deferens
19 Evidence from paleontology
20 Evidence from geographical distribution of animals
21 Evidence from Island biogeography
22 Evidence from Endemism
23 Evidence from Adaptive radiations
24 Evidence from Ring Species
25 Evidence from Migration and isolation of the animals
26 Evidence from observed natural selection in the lab and in the field
27 Evidence from Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
28 Lactose intolerance in humans
29 Evidence from Nylon-eating bacteria
30 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
31 Evidence from artificial selection
@César Rabbit Smart wabbit.
@@ultrad-rex1389 mate literally fossil records r the biggest evidence dir evilution 🙄🙄🙄
Thanks, i need this for a stand paper
Read the books of Claude Rael.
I can refute this in one second. That is your perception of the evidence. Done. Genes of animals and humans are alike yes, but your theory relies on the opinion that these commonalities must mean that they derive from the same thing.... My opinion is that they don't. until you can conclude that the bones of intermediate species ever reproduced, then it would be a fact. If you can show evidence of an intermediate species ever existing now or before then boom you have a fact. BUT BONES SHOW EVERYTHING WE ALREADY KNOW. Different species are genetically alike. I never concluded that a football was birthed through many species of pig or football pigs. Nor do I think that we came from Bananas because we have similar genetic makeup, the fact is God made us from the dust of this earth and we are going to be genetically alike other living things here. Maybe you don't believe that but imagine me telling you it is my theory but it is also a fact. Nope not gonna cut it. You have a belief and so do I . I interpret this list of so called evidence as something else. you clearly are misrepresenting facts by assimilating one interpretation from said findings.
People not understanding what a theory is and that a theory can also be a fact has gotten old, really, really old.
I capitalize Theory in scientific context.
***** It depends on what the context is. Evolution is a fact by definition. Offspring are not clones of the parents. We call that phenomena evolution. And you're correct, the ToE is the collection of facts, evidence, and documents relating to evolution. Theories never become facts any more than an envelope becomes a letter. They are different animals.
+Anton Lindberg PAGY I meant "fact" as in the common definition of the word. People who are using the common definition of "theory", rather than the scientific definition of "theory" but don't understand how trying applying the common definition in a scientific context is wrong, don't need to be further confused by semantics. The first step to getting people to accept that evolution is a proven theory is to use common language so they can grasp the fundamentals.
Marc Norton I disagree. We need to stop dumbing down to the least common denominator. Too many people are brain lazy. Ask a few people if they're in a car going 60mph, how long will it take to go 60 miles. If they get that, ask what the decimal for half a quarter. These concepts aren't that hard. They need to learn them. That's how I feel.
Modern religion and various other scams have been very successful at dumbing down. After a person is a teenager their capacity to learn new things diminishes each year.
Do they need to learn them? Yes. Will they learn them? Probably not. So there's no crime in tailoring tour message to the person you're talking to.
Nice try, but the theory is flawed. You failed to mention the tides. They come in and then they go out. You can't explain that!
As far as i know, the tides are caused by the gravitational forces of the moon.
...but... but.. who put the moon there?
you cant explain that?
who put it there.....?
Lovely Destruction Hahaha. What's funny is people really think that.
marshmallow had almost convinced me I may have erred. Thanks Lovely Destruction for clearing things up
Ryan McIntyre yeah, Bill O Rielly does, he actually said that
The thing that annoys me about this question is that there is no "The theory of evolution". There is the fact of evolution: Species change over time. Then there are theories as to why they do this. The most common theory being "The theory of evolution by natural selection". The theory part of that being the "by natural selection" part.
During Darwings time the fact of evolution was known, tho not widely accepted. Another theory of evolution during his time was Lamarckism, that basicly worked trough "Genetic memory".
So in my mind the answer to this question is.
There is the fact of evolution: Species change over time.
And the widely accepted theory : The theory of evolution by natural selection.
Edit: Lamarckism, not tailorism. I keep getting those two words mixed up and i dont know why.
Because it's not "The theory of evolution", that is a just an abbreviation. The whole name is "the theory of evolution by the means of natural selection". And the current accepted theory is called "modern evolutionary synthesis".
There is (fact of) evolution (common descent, change in allele frequence etc.) and theory that describes it.
Jan Paulsson I'm fond of telling YECs that evolution is a fact, a law, *and* a theory.
The fact is that evolution is observed.
The law is the law of Natural Selection, as stated in the last paragraph of the Origin, and says that if 5 assumptions are true (Reproduction, Variation, Inheritance, Competition, and Deep Time) then bio-diversity *must* result.
The theory is that the law explains the fact.
K Tell
It isnt law. What the fuck are you talking about?
stafferoinen a law in Science is a statement describing some aspect of the universe. They are usually expressed as equations but they don't have to be.
Natural Selection is a law in that sense. If you take any group of things in the universe with the ability to reproduce with inheritance and variation, where those things compete for the limited ability to produce the next generation of whatever they are, under conditions where the population would grow exponentially if it were not otherwise limited, then, given enough generations the things in question are bound, statistically, to adapt to whatever factors are involved in the limiting of the population and the end result has to be diversity (provided the mathematical landscape of limiting factors is similarly diverse).
I've tried to write the above with as little reference to the obvious case of life on earth as possible to highlight the fact that it could apply to other things. Dawkins proposed the idea of Memes to show that something other than life could be subject to the law of Natural Selection, and you can also demonstrate it artificially by writing a computer program which mimics life.
I'm not saying Darwinian Evolution in the real world is a law, it's not, it is a theory. But Scientific Theories are "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world" (see wiki) and as such a Theory encompasses Laws.
Thus the law of Natural Selection is the expression of how bio-diversity *would* occur if life conforms to the 5 assumptions it makes, or how any life like organisms would diversify in any real, simulated, or imagined situation with the same rules. Whereas the Theory states that apparently this really is the explanation for most bio-diversity that we see in the real world.
This video could have been 3 seconds long, you staring at the camera for 2 seconds, then saying yes, end video.
I was literally about to comment this, but you beat me to it 😂
evolution is a theory because no one has seen it happen
@@pagani5191 just like you having a brain is a theory cuz no one has seen it
Exactly that's all that it would take for religious science worshiping stupid brainwashed waste of oxygen cucks. 😂
I can hear Ken Ham now: "Dawkins calls evolution a crime!"
shhhh don't give him any ideas!!
Sean Armstrong Oh crap!
atticstattic Ken Ham got really excited when he first read the title of this video. But he thought Dawkins was saying "Is evolution a fart?"
you right
@@GuilleMas the evolutionary lie is less valuable than a fart
Richard Dawkins:- Explains evolution and all the facts
Creationist:- Sure, but were you there?
Dawkins never presents any evidence for evolution , he just talks a good game .
He explains evolution through miraculous mutations that suddenly somehow formed new structures and systems. He's just a God hater who will believe anything else.
I really like this new "series" of Mr. Dawkins answering questions. I hope for many more.
So do I. Let's see if he can answer just one from me.
Yep, this series is very good.
I fear that RD's lack of explanation of why we have seasons will cause more people to believe it has to do with the orbit rather than the tilt of the earth combined with the orbit. REMEMBER FOLKS, WHEN ITS WINTER IN THE NORTH, ITS SUMMER IN THE SOUTH, AND VICE VERSA
I find it distressing that you feel you have to explain that.
"Is Evolution a Fact?"
spolier
yes
I note Pure Facts, that you include abiogenesis theories among your options here. Best not do that- it is not the same as evolution.
But all of the various "theories" you proffered are about explaining the fact of evolution.
Most are theories about specific families of flora/ fauna and are not counter theories to evolution by natural selection.
Not an impressive selection, you don't seem to have understood what you were saying.
@@ozowen5961 But what he gave he's still kinda funny 😂
What does spolier mean?
@Rawmatt We still can't fully explain gravity, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Prove it
When i hear an ape sing as good as Connie Francis sings , then i will believe in evolution .
For your information, Connie Francis, like all of us, is an evolved ape. There, sorted it for you.
Mr. Dawkins. I'm abit puzzled that you would say that we don't observe our earth rotate around the sun, and spin on its own axis. I believe there are multiple ways to do this without extrapolating on information about the season or night-day shiftings.
+Alex Sparta With modern space technology, yes we can go out there and watch it, but the theory was developed long before space travel....
We actually don't. Just accept it.
"Mr. Dawkins. I'm abit puzzled that you would say that we don't observe our earth rotate around the sun, and spin on its own axis." I'm puzzled that you wrote, "our earth rotate around the sun" when it orbits the sun. hehe While I'm at it, a better choice for spin would be rotate. Remember to capitalize Earth, too. lol Have a good one!
Actually, we can't observe the earth revolving around the sun. We can observe the earth's position relative to the sun, and plot the orbit of the earth around the sun, to infer that the earth revolves around the sun. However since both the earth and sun are in motion, we actually cannot see this oblique orbit of the earth around the sun. If you trace the earth's path in space, it would look like a spring pulled on either ends. The oblique orbit of the earth around the sun is relative to the position of the sun, without the sun as a point of reference, the earth doesn't exactly revolve around anything we've discovered yet actually. If it makes better sense, trace the path of the moon but remove the earth and use the sun as a point of reference and you get the moon "revolving" around the sun in an orbit of loops... which neatly matches with the analogy, as evolution occurs relative to populations, types, and species. Hope this helps
A lot of folks commenting and imagining their ignorance invalidates evolution.
Alot of people thinking that their answers invalidate creationism. As hard as you try you cannot prove evolution it takes faith, you have put your faith in a dead man, we have put our faith in a living God.
@@jaysonkerchhoff1351 Creationism is not valid, evolution has been observed, and God (whatever that is) by definition is not living.
@@jaysonkerchhoff1351 First you have to show that your "God" is, in fact "living". Then you have to explain what you mean by "living".
FYI, nobody puts their "faith" in a dead man. Not Darwin, not anybody else.
The science of Evolution has come a long, long, way from Darwin. The fact that you Christians are so hung up about him proves, to me at at least, that you haven't got a clue about the current state of science and proofs for evolution.
Creationism is a futile hypothesis which is unproveable, unfalsifiable and therefore utterly ludicrous.
A question for you...
There are upwards of 2 trillion (2,000,000,000,000) galaxies in the observable Universe, which is defined as a sphere of about 93 billion light years centred on the Milky Way Galaxy.
At a best estimate, there are between 100 and 400 billion stars in the "Milky Way" galaxy (between 100,000,000,000 and 400,000,000,000).
This would indicate that the estimated number of stars in the observable Universe is somewhere between 200 and 800 sextillion (200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
Why?
Question: Would you consider the changes in crops, adapting to their local environment or creating larger yields etc. a type of evolution?
Since larger yields are the result of selective breeding and not natural selection, I doubt that it counts as evolution. Although it is a very very similar process.
@@songbird7450it is evolution just by artificial means.
@@songbird7450That is evolution. Is is just ‘artificial’ evolution created by humans applying strong selection pressures. Kind of like the evolution of dog breeds.
Selective breeding is nothing like evolution.
2:19 do you like the small black&white pictures next to the door frame?
wow dawkins just blew my mind again. For a second, i understood what the questioner wrote in about how we can observe the earth revolving around the sun.....but after dawkins explained that we actually can NOT in fact WATCH the earth go around the sun, it makes a lot more sense to me. Never though about it that way.
actually we can lmao
@@mohamedelsayed1868not if you live on earth you can't.
@@cezar211091 thats what space telescopes/video are for. we CAN observe the earth moving by beaming images back to earth...thus we CAN while on earth. evolution is a farce.
Great video BUT one flaw: None of the scientist had actual observation of evolution taking place. All is based on hypothesis which is NOT objective science but subjective science.
COVID VIRUS AND ALL ITS VARIANTS DISPROVES YOUR IDIOTIC STATEMENT 😂👍
Evolution is observed in our genetics and the fossil record
FAIL
@@captaingaza2389 Great response BUT NO human has OBSERVED any transformation of one kind of species to ANOTHER kind of species! You still missed the answer. However you are beating around the bush!
@@thaddeusramos3543
It is clear you have no clue what observation means in science
Maybe try reading more than one book
@@captaingaza2389 It is YOU who is in denial ! Now go watch the movie, The Incredible Hulk! It shows the power of Darwin Evolution finally hitting Hollywood!
Unfortunately, the editing is still distracting. I'm a video editor and I can't help noticing that the lip sync is a few frames out.
Anyone else notice the cross microphone?
Has RD become a closet christian?
Richard Dawkins: The Earth's spinning is just a theory. *- FOX News*
😂😂😂😂😂
This made me laugh more than it should have
Theory, not hypothesis.
Where can I find that he said that?
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h FOX News!
Theory of evolution is a very wide concept with a lot of holes scientists fill with quick jumping to conclusions. It became such a mess that it will take a long time to differentiate ideas from facts, if ever.
Nope
Conclusions are arrived through consensus based on empirical evidence.
What you have claimed is based on ignorance
Get an education
@Меѳодїи
Well thankfully the world of science doesn’t wait on your ill informed opinion.
@Меѳодїи
Those are only problems for those who can’t accept the facts laid bare by science.
Thankfully science moves forward while you stagnate in your ignorance
You’re pathetic
@@captaingaza2389 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@cloroxbleach3809
I seem to have touched a nerve
The camera angle change thing is awkward as hell. I know, it doesn't affect the message, but, by being distracting, it does engage a part of my mind/brain I'd rather dedicate to what you're actually saying.
Day and night are a facts that we are living and seeing the results of them
Unlike evelotion.
Evelotion
Evolutions evidence > Detectives evidence
Another amazing video. Thank you Richard.
Well to be fair, both the evidence of evolution and the evidence of what a detective has are both high. The evidence of evolution is like when the detective finds the rapist's DNA in a pair of women's underwear, it is undeniably true that the rapist has been caught now...same thing with evolution, there is a lot of evidence for evolution.
I am suprised he didnt mention the fact that evolution happens faster the bigger a population is and the faster new generations get replaced. That means you can actually observe evolution and the effects of it. Mostly microorganisms but the mutation of fruitflies etc is also very impressive
+scheerBOM I have to partially agree, but I think he avoided that on purpose. The instant follow up to that is often "Well that's micro-evolution!" which we both know is ridiculous. He did mention that we can't see the major elements of evolution (or something to that effect) and I think that alludes to what you're saying.
That's not (darwinian)evolution, that's adaptation, but nice try
@@WiseAsSerpentsHarmlessAsDoves If the "adaption" is genetic, it is Evolution. You do not get to redefine terms to suit your bias.
@@walkergaryaso tell us what is correct definition of evolution
@@androidvariedades6867 Biological Evolution is the change in a species population over time from genetic variation that can result in a species dividing into two or more daughter species.
isnt the changing seasons more to do with the angle of the earth?
Your donation page is broken. Nothing happens when I try to donate via paypal. I will check back later and try again
You can't observe a person aging but given a substantial ammount of time, change will become clear
But you have picture of his every shape evolving from child to aged person....... why not same in terms of evolution? where are those living beings who were in between animal one and animal two showing both characteristics thy there is such a big difference in between two shapes of it?
Absolutely brilliant explanation. Thank you.
I really hope that one day they will make a video better explaining the singularity, particularly if there was no space around it how could it exist. Most of the big bang makes perfect sense but it seems with the singularity the more I struggle to understand it the faster it escapes me. If there is someone who is well versed in physics could shed some light on this it would be very much appreciated.
I can't believe he has to explain this. Are people really that distrusting of science that they can't just simply realize that this isn't a metaphysical argument?
The day of Richard Dawkins birth March 26, from here on out should be declared Dawkins Day.
I can't say that I agree with calling evolution a "fact" but I wouldn't say that there ARE facts, in the sense of a fact being something that is 100% true, except things that are true by their own definitions and something like "I think therefore I am". But if you're aying that something is a fact in the sense that it's the most reasonable thing to say is true, then yes it is a fact. Interestingly, many things we observe in day-to-day life are supported by less evidence and are less likely to be true than evolution, so what many people say are "facts" are less reasonable to assume to be the case than evolution. Semantics is always frustrating because I find myself disagreeing with you in some sense, but people who oppose evolution using the "it's just a theory" argument (if you can even call it an argument) will interpret my disagreement as bolstering their claim, when I couldn't disagree more with them. So many arguments hinge on the exact words you pick, and it's especially frustrating when the person you're arguing with has misinterpreted definitions of words, or outright says that they mean things that they don't.
Show me one (1)
Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact.
Seriously needs the foundation media manager to get their act together. First interviews conducted by a guy while on his phone now this weird 2 angle shoot.
This is basic stuff but it obscures an interesting topic with rank amateur production.
i would have thought the observation of a mutating / evolving virus was proof beyond reasonable doubt of evolution.
then again, peering into the microscopic can be an arduous task for normal people who don't have immediate access to it
i also like to assume energy is a form of evolution, considering overtime it can change, degrade and ultimately cease to be energetic. the reaction to heat is a good example, boiling a kettle changes the structure and makes it hotter, it evolves to transfer heat.... i know, i'm being a little silly, but you understand the changes are that of observation and can be determined with a working knowledge of heat transfer.
like the detective analogy, we can see little footprints showing it used to be hot, or it used to be hotter at least.
this is the biggest deflect ever
I very much respect the great deal of patience this man has shown throughout the years. He has been answering basically the same questions over and over again. And still he does.
Evolution is a very big mystery. It happened so long ago. You would have to actually be there to see it happen to clearly say that is a fact.
@@oneiroagent we can observe macroevolution happening?? Are you drunk or just believe whatever your boyfriend Dawkins tells you
He looks towards the second camera, camera doesn't switch. Haha that was hilarious.
I can prove evolution very clearly in a sentence. Men and women develop from the womb, We all start with a tail; not a tale. The tail isn't present upon birth. We lose the tail because tails are more useful aquatically where we came from. Now we walk on land no need for tails; just our mind and tales of what our minds conceive.
What are you even talking about do you know anything about embryology !
I don't like how he said "happened a long time ago". I know that Richard Dawkins is obviously aware that Evolution isn't something that "happened" at one point in time, in the past, that it's a gradual, constant process which was and is happening, slowly, but there's bound to be people who would misunderstand what he said and people who would abuse that quote.
Well, there are plenty of aspects of evolution that happened a long time ago. Man evolved a long time ago. Tiktaalik had developed many of the traits of modern tetrapods and began scoping out areas of the shoreline for his descendants to build condominium complexes on a long time ago. Some dinosaurs grew feathers and developed other features and evolved to the point that we now call them birds a long time ago. I believe this is what he was referring to... historical evolution (so to speak). Yes, it's true that evolution is still and will always happen as long as life exists. Evolution will continue in the future, is happening now, and indeed happened a long time ago.
How can you abuse that quote when he has already written many books on the subject?
ESJ Chcgo You're giving people too much credit.
You don't understand my comment. I'm just saying their argument would be invalid.
ESJ Chcgo You don't say? Obviously, their argument would be invalid, I thought that was clear.
I’m a fan of Dawkins, but why is he saying we don’t have direct evidence of the earth spinning? We have visual evidence from satellites
Not the entirety of it though. No one watches the entire one year cycle in real time, yet we know it happens.
@@GC-yw1mn Well because we don't need to! Why would you try to prove the existence of a spoon that is already there? Unless if you're a schizophrenic with a sense of philosophy.
Why Dawkins didn't say the fact that we can observe evolution. We can observe the natural selection in petri dishes on bacteria, viruses just as every other microorganisms and we can experiment the artifical(i mean human made) selection like choosing the best plants for seeding the field or mate the only best dogs to have better race, or only use bull which have the most meat for mating. We will observe the natural selection but it takes time and the theory itself is very new when you consider the living things evolving for billions of years. (im not native speaker so dont mind the grammar mistakes.
I really hope Richard Dawkins stays alive along enough to witness his beloved theory of evolution blow up.
Well Jeff
At least you’re still alive to know you’re wrong
Maybe try reading more than one book
@@captaingaza2389 you not need to read a book to understand that nothing can be formed from a explotion.
Do you or a scientist knows something with functions made from a explotion? What book can tell me that?
@@JorgeLopez.888.
You’ve made no sense In Your comment
What explosion are you referring to?
@@captaingaza2389 whatever you want, explotion of a sun, or galaxy or big bang, or do you know some kind of explotion that form something?
@@JorgeLopez.888.
If you’re going to discuss science, it’s best you learn and understand the terms correctly.
Nobody says an explosion created anything, only misinformed or clueless people use these terms.
Complexity has arisen since the Big Bang, this has been observed
If evolution is a fact then I would like to know the answer to the following question: how does the theory of evolution explains the problem of arrival to the 'selectability state'? Selectability state in the evolution of some biological system or structure is such an arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA which contains information for functional system or structure that offers a selectable benefit to an organism. If something offers selectable benefit then, of course, it will be SELECTED. But, before SELECTION happens, we have one huge problem. What we observe in biology is structural intradependence and this intradependence predetermines necessity for a specific DNA information. Meaning, it is NOT the environment of an organism which predetermines DNA information that will be selected, but an already existing DNA information that codes for an already existing structure or a system. Examples:
a) intron-exon gene structure predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to rearrange the nascent pre-messenger RNA transcript in which introns are removed and exons are joined together. This information codes for 'rna splicing machinery'.
b) structure of egg cell predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to initiate the development of a new individual organism. This information codes for a specific 3D arrangement of molecules that is called - a sperm cell.
c) heart structure predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to produce structure with the ability to prevent the back flow of blood from the ventricle to the atrium when blood is pumped out of the ventricle. This information codes for structure that is called - a heart valve.
When DNA information for these structures exists, then of course - it will be SELECTED. But how would you find this predetermined information via random nucleotide rearrangement process(mutations), if only 1,000 nucleotides can be arranged into 10^602 combinations. Let us for e.g. consider the information needed to build a human heart.
If we assume that only 8.2 percent of human DNA is functional(1), and given the ratio between the heart-weight and body-weight in humans, there is approximately 1,230,000 nucleotides representing the information to build a human heart. This nucleotides can be arranged into 10^740,000 possible combinations.
Given the Reidhaar-Olson&Sauer ratio of protein functionality, where for a protein 92 AA long, with 10^122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10^63 functional sequence, that means that only 1 in every 10^382,000 combination contains information for a functional human heart.
Using fast mutation rates, total number of organisms that have ever lived on Earth, length of genomes and so forth... published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations at 10^50. Now, even if there were 10^50 selection steps(small improvements) in evolution, even if every selection step were advantageous to an organism and even if all mutational resources were spent on search for functional heart, the probability to find the information to build a human heart is 10^381,950. This is like winning the lottery jackpot 54,560 times in a row. Now, we now that in everyday life, if a person believes that it is possible to win the jackpot 'only' 10 times in a row, this person would be called crazy. So, by what process did evolution arrived to the selectability state and find functional information in the space of 10^382,000 combinations with only 10^50 resources available?
(1)www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-only-8-2-human-dna-functional-02083.html
The argument has a fundamentally flawed assumption that the human heart, in it's exact genetic form, is the only possible biological solution to the problem of providing oxygen necessary for metabolism. If you start with the first organisms and assume a forgone conclusion that the exact human genome will arise in exactly a certain amount of time, the odds are staggeringly low for an exact match to reality, obviously. Here we are though, obviously.
Just think about any individual in existence. There are 0.5*2^50,000 number of gene combinations from any two humans (parents). Now think about how many human generations have existed just to produce you. Its like you won the lottery millions of times in a row.
A you really serious with this answer? First, my argument has nothing to do with number of possible biological solutions to the problem of providing oxygen necessary for metabolism, but with the ratio of nucleotide combinations which contains information for a given biological solution to all possible nucleotide combinations. Second, you don't understand basic probability. If two individuals produce offspring it is necessary to get offspring with some gene combination. This is called - necessity and it has nothing to do with probability. For example: If you roll a dice 100 times it is necessary to get some numbers. Probability is the measure of the likeliness of rolling 100 specific numbers that you selected before rolling. Likewise, probability of offspring with gene combination xyz is the measure of the likeliness of producing an offspring with gene combination xyz that is selected BEFORE this offspring is born.
So this argument of yours is pure circular reasoning. It presupposes that probability is not problem for evolution because we observe biological solutions, functional biological systems or because we observe various biological solutions for similar ecological niches.
Your argument is like situation in which one person wins the same lottery with the same numbers 100 times in a row and then, after this pearson and lottery organisers are suspected of manipulating a lottery, they defend themselves by saying: this is not a problem, because some numbers must come up. This is of course nonsensical. You cannot mix necessity with probability.
You can lead a horse to water...
We don't know yet. Scientist only know that gene changes over time by mutation(or something else) and that is evolution.Your question is about origin of DNA. And no, DNA does change by external factors, try to radiate gene by X-rays.
If you asked this..
The problem is in the conflation of the term hypothesis with that of theory, plain and simple.
I would like to know how evolution gave me the capacity to see the subconscious of people.
The answer is YES.
Absolutely scientists are like detectives,they can look up and prove evolution.Please make more of these videos
Evolution is entirely faith based. There is no good evidence to support it.
That’s a weird analogy because most detectives get it wrong😅
We need more contents like this on RUclips.
As we entered an environment where knowledge and resources are widely assessable and exposed, our brains are taking in and updating knowledge, data, languages and cultures much more quickly. Children born in recent decades therefore outperform in many different ways. Our brain is evolving into a golden age of its evolution through the great invention of The Internet. Would this be the next natural selection?
Children of recent decades are the worst educated generation in Hunan history. Their math skills are non-existent, their critical thinking is non-existent, their knowledge of history and geography, chemistry, and physics is beyond appalling.
I don't know what fantasyland you live in but I'll bet cannabis is your favorite vegetable.
I'm a bit of a dunce at this science malarky but can't the planet moving round the sun and spinning be observed by space cameras or by being in a space capsule or space station perhaps eating some space food or playing space cards?
Facts annoy creationists and conservatives in general.
If it's such a well-known fact, show me one evidence for it.
Transitioning fossils.
Pope Dawkins show me the best example
Pope Dawkins not by any stretch of the imagination. creation.mobi/greater-than-98-chimp-human-dna-similarity-not-any-more
Alex Repented necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html
Thank you Dawkins 🖒🖒🖒🖒❤
Could there possibly be a "end product" of evolution, a species that is perfectly adapted to its environment? If that is the case, would every species evolve to be exactly like that one species? Would there be just one species in the end because to be like it would have the biggest advantage?
No evolution is always happening. But you can look up "stabilizing selection" one of the three types of selection where the environment doesnt change for a long time and the "extremes" go extinct
I think the “only a theory” argument is so popular because of the unfortunate disparity between the common definition of “theory” in American pop culture, and the working definition of the word in science.
The fact that the earth revolves around the sun was a theory. Then we observed it and realized that it was and is and will always be fact. Evolution on the other hand remains in the first stage of theory.
Do you know what a theory in science is? A theory is the highest rank a claim can have. Theories have evidences. Something that is claimed but has no evidences isn’t called "theory" in science, it’s called hypothesis.
Read a book. Your ignorance abounds.
The earth does not revolve around the sun
@@captaingaza2389 it does unless you’re an idiot.
@@captaingaza2389
Are you drunk or high?
Why does the Earth revolve around the Sun?
Anyway, the basic reason why the planets revolve around, or orbit, the Sun, is that the gravity of the Sun keeps them in their orbits. Just as the Moon orbits the Earth because of the pull of Earth's gravity, the Earth orbits the Sun because of the pull of the Sun's gravity.
"The fool has said in his heart that there is no God".
"The fools have been brain washed to believe there is a god"
That's the thing about ignorance is that you don't know your ignorant.
+Niilo Wigelius Ok, nobody has been brainwashed, you are brainwashed by your false spitting leader of evolution, Richard Dawkins. What he says about Evolution is completely stupid, he even said we came from aliens. (basically) (he really said there could have been a creator that planted life here.) He said a creator could have planted life here, because he found out that the Big Bang was a fraud, BUT of course he stuck true to his religion, and said that they must have gone through evolution because it is fact, and I say: "What you are saying isn't really a fact, because you cannot observe evolution on "Alien" life.
+azuza jones Yes, everyone, even me, the biggest skeptic ever, believes God is real, I am just blinded by the facts of evolution, I just don't quite know how it could fit in (yet)
Mr. Skeptist I don't think the Universe sprung from quantum mechanics and eventually through evelotion created intelligent life. I believe that there was an intelligent force. Like an engineer creating a car, pc, and plane, you never look at a pc and say "oh the wind and pure entropy alone built that machine NOT a team of intelligent people". Whe don't even fully understand the human mind till this day so people think that it came into existence through evelotion and time? Does evelotion have that much intellect and consciousness that it can design something that us humans can't understand?
The first camera seems to have better color and a better angle. Theres simply no reason to have two cameras when hes just sitting and talking in one place. It distracts from what hes actually saying and loses a bit of your thought process. I vote like everyone else to stick with that first camera. I'm not sure why anyone thought it'd be a good idea to alternate, honestly.
Mr. Dawkins, could you put legends in english on your next videos, please?
A hypothesis is still a hypothesis
Evolution is not a scientific idea its a world view. All of the evidence used by the evolution theorist is better used and more plausibly applied to the creation worldview.
@Anon Ymous Explain the source of information in DNA.
@Anon Ymous
The universe is a closed system.
The earth radiates the same amount of solar energy back into space that it receives daily.
The sun is the primary engine of entropy.
Just leave your car out in the sun and see how your paint job and upholstery IMPROVE with the addition of energy.
Sunlight also corrupts DNA code causing loss of information through mutations.
All mutations are deleterious because they AL involve the corruption of the perfectly created code that all life was given.
There are no beneficial mutations, vestigial organs, or randomly generated genetic codes.
There are more than 25,000 human genetic diseases cataloged by Johns-Hopkins.
All DNA breaks down over time and time is the enemy of the evolutionary worldview which also sees a continuous lack of scientific underpinning with every new discovery.
Genetic mutations accumulate and increase with every successive generation, providing the proof that evolution is impossible.
Collecting corrupt genetic code has no ability to produce new Families, Orders Phyla, or Kingdoms.
Evolution is a FRAUD and you are an ignoramus.
There is no known pathway for the generation of primordial soup, and no evidence that it ever existed.
@Anon Ymous Evolution is loosely connected to science but it violates many laws of science.
This proves that is nothing but a worldview, a type of religion, and an occult cult, an antiscience collection of ancient disproven beliefs masquerading as science.
The only 'evolution' that happens is variation within Linnaean Families.
For example, all cats belong to the Felidae Family, all dogs to Canidae and no crossover intermediate species transitioning from one Family to another
have ever been observed and never will be because genetics and DNA simply do not permit it.
This so-called microevolution is a design feature built into life by God to allow for life to adapt to every niche and changing condition created by the entropy also built into the system.
The earth is a closed system and the sun is just a part of it.
It has an expiration date and it's comin' up.
Your free will allows you to pick and choose what you believe so please continue to embarrass yourself by buying into mystical belief systems that deny observable facts determined via the scientific method.
One of these is the Law of Biogenesis which states that life only arises from life.
Your only recourse against this law is to invoke the argument from ignorance logical fallacy and claim that we just don't know or to embrace SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, neither of which bolster your feigned claim to believe in science.
The rejection of scientific laws makes you a religious zealot and an enemy of science.
@@brontehauptmann4217 DNA is a long polymer of simple units called nucleotides.
if you are asking source of the nucleotides, they form naturally on their own, without magic
@@spatrk6634 I want YOU to identify the source of the information.....
Contained in the chemical code of DNA.
The information that codes for not just the synthesis of proteins but for the anatomy and physiology of life forms.
Where did that INFORMATION come from!
I understand micro evolution, but I don't understand how by looking at fossil records proves that macro evolution happened. We can observe micro, it's pretty obvious that that happens but to say that we evolved from bacteria millions or billions of years ago seems like a little stretch. To me at least.
Excellent explanation.
Believing in evolution is like believing in god. Prove me wrong
Where's the evidence of your god?
Evolution is a fact and God is a failed hypothesis. It's definitely not the same.
Nobody in the right mind would BELIEVE in evolution, that would be insane
Belief is only required when you don’t have empirical evidence
There is plenty of evidence for evolution
You either accept the facts and evidence or you don’t
No BELIEF required
so the scientist wants us to believe without seeing, the irony.
+Leandro Selier well there are people still alive that were there to witness the what you just referenced, no one living today has seen human evolution, but ok if you say so.
+Leandro Selier wolves and dogs are not humans.
He wants you to beleive in evolution like how you beleive the earth revolves around the sun. Choose not to beleive one or the other but your an idiot if you don't believe either.
+andromeda gen keep rejecting facts... its almost like you have some narrative youre trying to keep...
Sorry that's because human life spans are fuck short to see anything happening, you fuck tard. That's why we started to do this for generations couple hundred years ago
I really like those analogies because there are many people who thinks something can be true only if they see that thing in front of their eyes. We didn't see evolution happening, but we have the clues that leads to us the to marks left by evolution in the fóssil record and, modern animais that still carry vestigials traits from their ancestors.
Notice how he talks about the detective deducing who the murderer is by looking at evidence of the aftermath like fingerprints, but he doesn't think that when looking at the universe, it's like if the detective said the crime was committed by no one.
That’s what the evidence says. The evidence doesn’t point to anyone doing it. Follow the evidence.
If you believe in evolution there is a 100% chance that you will take the mark of the beast.
Nobody in their right mind would BELIEVE in evolution, that would be crazy
You either ACCEPT the facts or you don’t
No BELIEF required
@@captaingaza2389 Evolution REQUIRES credulity. It is a stupid satanic religion of death that has exactly ZERO facts backing it up.
It is nothing more than a collection of lies,and fairytales and half truths.
Everyone who buys that idiocy is unworthy of any response .
@@captaingaza2389 Nobody in their right mind accepts evolution especially when you can prove that every facet of it is BS.
@@brontehauptmann4217
Great
Provide me with a single piece of empirical evidence that falsifies evolution
I’ll wait
@@captaingaza2389 DNA is a coded encyclopedia that contains DIRECTIONS for the production of life from non-life.
Specified information preserved in a molecule can only arise from mind.
Any denial of that is simply unscientific, and irrational.
You cannot provide a Darwinian source of specified actionable information.
Evolution is a myth, d0t c0/\/\
Your lack of understanding isn’t evidence.
This video would have been so much better had there been another camera angle each time Mr Dawkins looked in another direction, maybe even have the other camera with a much brighter hue so the colors were more vivid, then back to the other camera with a more realistic natural color, and so on and so forth.
My gratitude Dr. Dawkins. I am one of your followers and have read some of your wonderful books. My greetings and appreciation. You are best of the best. I love your work. Best regards Eddie.
Check out “The Devil’s Delusion - Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions”
It’s just as philosophical as The Origin of Species and quite a good read.
“Life Itself” - Francis Crick
It’s a good one.
A really good one.
Because he didn’t let his atheism get in the way of the science. 😘
@@abducteeofearth1703 SHUT UP, MAGIC BELIEVER. GO BACK TO THE SUNDAY PEDO CULT
@@abducteeofearth1703 thank you so much.
@@abducteeofearth1703 thank you so much.
To flip a theory to a fact is an overstatement . Interpretation makes theories ,observation makes facts . There can be infinite different Interpretations but there can be only one fact to be observed at a time and a place.
thanks for doing this, mr dawkins ^^
We do observe that earth is spinning , what do you think satellites are meant for ?
I know that there is evidence for microevolution (adaptation within species), such as finch beaks, but what is the scientific evidence for macroevolution (evolution from one life form to a completely different kind of life form)?
That is not what "macroevolution" is. Macroevolution is the variation of a population that results in a new species, even if that new species closely resembles the parent species.
That’s speciation not macro evolution
@@epicchocolate1866 Creatard, "MacroEvolution" is the change in a population that results in a new species. Yes, that is speciation. Same thing.
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
University of Berkeley
@@walkergarya I think macroevolution would best be described as large-scale innovation. Instead of variations in color or shape, which can be expressions of existing genetic information, macroevolution would have to result in large-scale changes necessary to form new organs or new bodies. This would require new genetic information. I don't believe that small-scale microevolutionary changes that have been observed can be extrapolated to explain large-scale macroevolutionary innovation, which has never been observed.
@@jollyrancher521 No, you do not get to redefine scientific terms. Micro-evolution is the variation within a breeding, ie species population. Macro-evolution is the variation beyond a species level, ie, speciation.
There are tens of thousands of mammal species. Very few of them have unique organs, they all have variations on the standard set.
We observe many examples of "new genetic information". We have examples of this that we can trace back millions of years.
Hmm.. wasn't expecting this answer.
It's like on one hand you say that I believe that an incident xyz happened and on the other (upon being quizzed) you admit well I didn't witnesses it first hand, but my friend did...
I'm quite surprised he gave this answer to explain science...
Is science then just a bunch of conjectures? and if yes, why does he then act as if he witnessed xyz happen first-hand, instead of hearing from his friend??
First you make a hypothesis, then you support it and if you find evidence you turn it into a theory. If you formulate it in the end, you make it a scientific law.
So evolution is a theory, but it has been proven. There is really nothing based on faith here.
A matter of great importance, especially when talking to creationists, good question.
Cant we observe the earth's rotation from space?
NASA, huh
It's not a question of whether evolution is a fact, but whether your 'detective interpretation' leads to the proper conviction... I asked a prospective professor of Anthropology, whether, dinosaurs-on-Mars is compatible with anthropology; He said, No... yet a "fact" is a fact: his interpretation, then-contemporary anthropology, was wrong; So, let's ask, Is Anthropology, consistent with Evolution...(?!)
The microphone under the sweater at first looked like a cross. That was scary.
Isn't it fun when the creationists say, "That's not evolution, that's just a minor change" ?
*So nobody ever saw the earth spinning or revolving around the sun, damn why i had to believe all the astronomers*
Ben G Because direct observation is not the only form of evidence?
Ben G How could the Earth revolve round the Earth?
Martin Pearson wanted to say sun...
Ben G
The Earth spins on its own axis, badass.
I love the greatest show on earth. ;) And this is a good example for explaning abit of evolution. I love science and evolution.
Science and progress. This is a nice channel. Gonna check it out some more!
me too
This is a wonderful explanation.
There has to be a hell if I can stumble over this video
Good, they got rid of the second camera angle. Now only need to stop looking at the second camera.
Very good video, Professor Dawkins :-)
So is it a fact or not? And by what definition of the word?
Maybe look up how ''fact'' and ''theory'' are defined and you would understand that your question makes no sense.
By the scientific definition. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. All you have to do is take a sample size one generation and compare it to a sample size of the next. That is an observed fact that say the allele frequencies for blue eye increase while brown eyes decrease or something like that. It's a quantifiable measure of changing alleles. That is evolution. That is a fact.
The idea of the theory is why this happens. Why do these allele frequencies for eye color, skin color, muscle mass, intelligence, etc all change over time. The theory of natural selection explains everything we see. It makes predictions about evolution that have been verified to be correct.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Stickyxgo Of course the question 'makes sense', it's the very question asked in the video title. Explain to me why the question doesn't make sense.
***** Thank you.
DylanDesign
No problem.
Is it deliberate not to distinguish between macro and micro?
probably, since it's the same process, and only the religious harp on it
@@AMC2283 That's not so. Michael Behe is a prominent US scientist who says that Macro is distinct, and no scientist in the world has ever shown how macro could work unguided. Read 'Darwin's Black Box'. He argues that scientists simply believe that in the same way that religious people believe in God without being able to prove it. In other words, scientists take the same leap of faith here that religious people have to make. Unguided macro-evolution is not a fact; scientists believe in it. Micro-evolution is a fact e.g. we can prove that adults are now a few inches taller globally and 60 years ago.
@@JLaw954 behe’s an idiot, irreducible complexity isn’t a thing, evolution isn’t an assembly process. He couldn’t debunk a bed.
@@JLaw954don’t understand evolutionary science huh?
So then, what is your alternative to explain the diversity of life on Earth?
@@rickdelatour5355 You didn't answer the question. Naturalism cannot explain the origins of the universe. I understand that much.
Haha, thanks for answering another question. I would have thought the answer was obvious, but apparently it wasn't.
I thought the microphone was a black cross for a second.....
I am absolutely not a Richard Dawkins supporter and am an ardent creationist but Richard does make perfect sense here. The observations and the inferences are really not in question here. It is merely the conclusions arrived at. My conclusion differs than his and I hope my is as based upon science (of which I am a follower) and logic. My conclusions may not be consistent with his or other evolutionists but remember they are based upon broken chains and inference much like Richard's are.
Dude Richard Dawkins wasn't a jerk and answered the question quite well
An educated conclusion backed up with strong evidence is extremely convincing, however to me it still does not make it an absolute fact. I would still say that evolution is a (very convincing) theory but not a fact.
more frequent videos please