That was the first interview with Richard Dawkins where i saw him in real conversation mode. When he said "Can i get a book to read you a chapter?" and he dashed off to find it I realised he was enjoying himself & not just doing some PR recommended by his agent. We saw the "Sunday afternoon just after dinner with a glass of port" Richard Dawkins and it was a real treat! Thank you! My head is full of that huge cascade of influence from the molecular level through proteins, blood, muscle, skin, scales & feathers, to brains and thence out into this cosmos and possibly out into the multiverse if our trajectory holds true. All from that first replicator "in a warm little pond".
You must be so proud of dolt Dawkins. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block I don’t agree with your appeal to “real science”. I think you are searching desperately to try and find a way to define your need for a God into a Scientific necessity. The evidence does not support your claims though. As our understanding of quantum mechanics has increased we have seen particles pop in and out of existence within protons. As they pop in and out of existence they leave behind matter. The tiniest particles of matter but newly created matter nevertheless.
@@2fast2block I’m not your Wikipedia, do some research for yourself! Scientists have yet to understand the singularity that caused Big Bang. So NO ONE can say anything scientific about it. You are just using the “god of the gaps” fallacy. Any question, especially a science-based one, has to have a quantifiably correct answer, that is verifiable. Just wanting something to be true doesn’t in fact make it true. No matter how heart felt your yearning is.
@@budd2nd it's clear you want to throw out proven science we know in hopes the laws of nature will change for you the brat because you don't like what they prove. Your way is if you don't like it then ignore it no matter how proven so you can have hopes it will all change for clueless you. Then keep on hoping as you lie in your empty life going nowhere. It's your life.
That's because you're clueless too. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I'm very impressed by your interviewing techniques. So conversation-like, easy to follow for the interested layman, but also rich in detail. I'd watch this on tv no kidding
That's because you're clueless too like those that follow Richard. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I have read Dawkins for the first time 35 years ago. Read several of his books since, and also watched many interviews from him. This was one of the best. Thank you for making this video.
No, he's just a nitwit. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
2:50 I just love the fact that when you quote the highlighted part, you also give the context. Way too often people take text out of context and it can be misunderstood even if properly quoted when the context is guessed wrong.
@12:00 a fun fact about those American Hollerith punch cards: they were the size they were because they were invented in part to do the 1890 census count, and there were money holders already in existence, so they made the cards the same size as the dollar bill. Which was that dimension till 1929, when the money was reduced to the standard we have presently.
Oh, I'm so happy he's looking so well. Looks fully recovered from the stroke touch wood. What an asset to the pro-science, rationality movement that man is.
It's great hearing two biologists talk about computer science. Although Dawkins undoubtedly has a fine grasp of the subject. "Toolbox" is now referred to as a library, terminology aside, it's precisely the same thing today as then. There's just more of it.
@David Murphy And more and more layers of it! RUclips (for the user) for example has: 1) A web framework - Which is handling the overall shape and structure of the page 2) JavaScript, HTML, CSS and some sort of backend remote server - Which is what that framework is based on or talks to for data 3) A web browser - Which is where this box I am typing into lives and which controls the rendering of the above layers 4) Application C++ - Which the web browser is built with 5) An Operating System's UI library - Which the core widgets that the C++ application uses live in, which controls everything from how text is rendered to the framework around the application and all of those components 6) An Operating System - Which provides the underlying basic tools that the UI library is built on 7) A Kernel - Which provides the simplest core components that an OS is built on 8) The hardware instruction set - ARM, RISC-V, x86; these are the languages the machines understand Maybe more
@@DampeS8N That's a very nice list. A kernel is very low, I'd probably see it as an api first and foremost, but I see where you're coming from. Tip of the cap to a fellow dev. :)
He's pro-clueless about science. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Beautiful and informative conversation delivered with precise clarity. I love the way RD self corrects with the insertion of ‘Probable’ and ‘possible’ - the humility of a scientist.
He's a liar, get over it. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Filled with lies because clueless people like you believe him. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
How you managed to not straight up fan girl out is beyond me. You had an intellectual conversation with RICHARD FUCKING DAWKINS man! How awesome is that?! I stumbled upon Richards Xmas lectures around 2007..? I was 25 years old, had an 9th grade education, a young earth creationist, just straight up stupid. Richards Xmas lectures had inspired me to get my GED and go to college. I was disappointed with college, no instructor was ever able to even come close to instilling that sense of awe and wonder like Richard did for me.
Yeah, two jokes who are clueless. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Wow! I would be such in awe of Richard I would not even know a good question to ask. But to see you so comfortably speaking with someone of his stature shows how knowledgeable you are for a guy who is 'just a graphic designer'. Now I am in awe of you.
Haha, thanks. Well, graphic design was my major in college but I've been teaching genetics now for 9 years. I suppose that helped. It was a true honor to be able to do this with Dawkins. He's had a huge influence on my thinking in the field of genetics.
No, two jokes who can't follow basic science. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@benjamindover5676 how a misfit thinks this is a good reply to what Dawkins says and to the science I gave.... "Is your god something or nothing?" That silly question somehow is good evidence to counter what I gave. This is the clueless mind of Dawkins followers. Always divert from what I wrote because you're stuck showing how empty you all are.
@@benjamindover5676 tell me how your question that is a clear diversion to this got around what I wrote. You keep on leaving that out. Try to step out of your clueless empty life and give something of substance. You won't, you are in love being clueless. Dawkins would be proud of you though because he loves his clueless life too.
You got him as a guest?! I've watched your channel for years, I guess I missed how big it's gotten, lol. I can't believe I missed this episode. Hold up, vitalism is still a thing? Man, I've never had someone try to pull that card. Then again, I'm a biologist and software engineer that built digital DNA models as a teen, so they would be fools to try it on me, lol! I think growing code is better than writing it personally even though I do both.
"a lot of New Age religion" That's an understatement! The problem that I notice with Dawkins is that he has difficulty meeting people where they are in their beliefs. He just re-states what is obvious in his mind that vitalism has been killed instead of explaining why this medical student is misinformed or misguided in her beliefs. But we must admit that her beliefs are far more prevalent and popular across the global, human population than the idea of a mechanical, mindless universe.
@42:20 ... in his answer to this question, Dawkins reminds me of Hitchens in the way he uses his imagination and known information to explain a larger idea.
I have always admired Richard. His father, Colyear, taught me statistics and in 1980 once demonstrated a rudimentary database of British grasses, or trees, that was codified on punched card. In this version a knitting needle or pencil served as a one factor binary operation ("retain" or "remove" cards from the pack) so that by repeated answering of yes/no questions led to a much reduced number of solutions (it might be this species, or suitable for this forest soil type) within the knowledge domain for which they cards were purposed, and greatly reducing the human effort to identify a species or perform multi-variate analysis. I was lost but not fearful, and remembered thinking that such cards did not, just, jump into existence.
Jon, I'm at time stamp 14:13, you found the tape helpful to see computers as machines. I work with ARM cpu & design for FPGA. It's the same thing in your smartphone. Just a lot more of it. The magic of your smartphone is an illusion. Not sure what all that fussing about "information" was. In terms of evolution, it's a plan. A plan to build something. Something that can hold the plan for it's own building, and do a bit more.
Something we might ask ourselves is _why_ base 4 and not binary. Why is DNA not composed only of two symbols. And I think the answer here is that _it could be_ and it also could have more than 4 symbols. 4 probably works out to strike a fine balance between information stability and mutation rates. You need both.
You love hearing clueless people like Richard. You are clueless too. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block Hi. As I understand it, 'nothing' in scientific terms carries a different connotation than from what you seem to be implying. And my reading of Genesis seems to suggest that either the god in that book created everything from nothing (a claim upon which you throw considerable shade), or as the occasional theologian seems to suggest, there never was nothing, a point that lines up with the current working model in physics. Your entropy explanation seems to suggest we're in a closed system. How did you determine this? Cheers
One of the mistakes people make is to view terms such as "information" (and similarly "energy") as a physical entities like sand or atoms. But, information really just describes the role that something plays in certain types of interaction. For instance, when it is windy the branches of a tree bend in the direction of the wind. The tree has no inherent idea of wind direction itself, but we can use that *information* about the branches to understand the wind's direction. So clearly information doesn't come from minds, even given you need a mind to understand it; but then you need a mind to understand anything and DNA doesn't have one.
This is a lot of familiar stuff to me. My PhD focus is computer architecture, so I know how CPUs work at the circuit level. But I also studied a lot of AI and information science.
So then explain how we got the universe from nothing and we'll take it from there. Show me that you actually learned something in school rather than pretending you did. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@theosib so Richard can speak about what's he's clueless on and you're ok with that. Why you love being a clueless empty joke is beyond me. "Cosmologists don't say the universe came from nothing." Shove this up your behind and see if it reaches your head up there. Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.” Dawkins' "literally nothing": ruclips.net/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/видео.html Lawrence Krauss wrote a book A Universe From Nothing that is something he prefers to call nothing. A nothing with space, matter, and time that somehow created space, matter, and time. Krauss, “Some of this bothers people. But who cares? Quantum mechanics is illogical-just get over it.” “But scientists have known for centuries that nothing is the key to understanding absolutely everything, from why particles have mass to the expansion of the universe - so without nothing we’d be precisely nowhere.” (New Scientist Promotions, 21 October 2013) “We started from literally nothing; from empty spacetime containing solely the energy of the quantum vacuum, and have arrived at our Universe today, with its billions of galaxies, stars, and all that ever was or will be here on Earth. (The Physics of Nothing; The Philosophy of Everything, August 16, 2011) Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
@@2fast2block Wow you sure wrote a lot. Its clear that you didn't read Krauss's book, because he wasn't referring to a philosophical nothing, and be has clarified that numerous times. There are some cosmological models that start with empty space, but that isn't really nothing. As for Dawkins talking out of his ass, he gets a lot of shit for that.
@@theosib I crushed you with science and showed how your joke scientists, including Krauss, DO talk about their nothing. You love lying in your silly empty life going nowhere. "There are some cosmological models that start with empty space, but that isn't really nothing." You not only lie to others, you lie to yourself. You are only good for providing laughter. Once you have space, you have matter and time also. Then you jokes call that nothing. THEN it somehow makes more. Life is a big joke to you, a joke.
Idea: Maybe we should say "DNA is a language" b/c it has some idiosyncrasies similar to human languages that are more rare in C++, Java or even Morse code. In particular the multiple synonymous codons.
"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender." Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)
To paraphrase Seth Shostak - if aliens make it to Earth they will be AI. It's the same if humans are to become interstellar. Meat bags don't travel well through parsecs of space. I'm also apprehensive of our future though. Good interview.
Not to argue, but if convergent evolution allows for the same traits to be arrived at by different gene sets, then how is it code? If there are potentially infinite ways to say the same thing, the analogy falls apart. Like code, but not code
(I can't tell you how much software I wrote on those long strips of punched paper, or how many times I swept the floors trying to get all those little dots...) ;)
The test tube experiments in replication do not demonstrate evolution in that they are set up in a thermodynamically ordered state and the reactions favoured by the Gibbs free energy formula. That is what happened was entirely predictable from a chemical bonding perspective which is why repeated tests did the same thing. the fact the length of RNA shortened shows how the increase in entropy compensated for the increase in number ie order.
So Jon, I'm guilty of the "it's not code, that an analogy" thing. Unlike creationists I want to learn and improve my knowledge, so that's one to take forward. Another thing I do is respond to people who say that things have devolved, and I'll say that there's no such thing, it's still evolution as evolution doesn't have a goal. Now here in your stream Dawkins refers to the RNA which became efficient and smaller devolving. I was very confident of my position, but how can I be if Dawkins says that? Do I have it all wrong and devolving actually is a thing?
Saying that information exists on DNA is accurate. Just as accurate as saying information exists on a random pile of sawdust. The valleys and peaks of within the dust pile can convey information. Formally, information is defined as any type of pattern that can influence the formation or transformation of other patterns. Well, the pattern on the pile of sawdust influence the firing pattern of neurons in my brain. So that's that. Emphasizing the existence of information on DNA just... completely misses the point, because that's not what's special about genetic information in the first place. "Code" is still an analogy, and the "code" analogy still implies a coder. There is no escaping that. No matter what you do, people are still gonna make that connection. The problem is this analogy misses an incredible amount of nuance on how cells actually use the genetic information. For starters, no amount of programming can actually change the hardware that the software is running on. This contradicts the evidence for the evolution of replication, transcription and translation, which is still happening right now. There is more, but I can't bother to list them all though...
I would like to think one day humans can send some form of primitive genetic digital signals out into the space and can plant a seed of life in every habitable planets out there, and they can evolve according to their own planetary conditions over millennia.
If people would know how complex, for example, C/C++ compiler is they wouldn't claim that coding systems can be put together by some random mechanism like natural selection. If you seek truth you must study how computers work and how programmers map the semantic texts (programming languages) to 1s and 0s. When I say "random mechanism" they say that natural selection is not random. So they can claim natural selection can make code system. But the point they forget is natural selection can work only when there is a code system.
If there is nothing but evolution (“the survival of the fittest”) to account for our existence, then where, and how, did morality emerge from, when it is in direct contravention of “the survival of the fittest”? Is it that once evolution had created a brain, then the brain took over and said thank very much, but now we are running how things will be done? Isn’t it quite logical to say that compassion does not live by such rules as 'survival of the fitest' and is usually about survival of the unfittest? I would like to offer Richard Dawkins the opportunity to answer this dilemma before he embarks on his down under tour in 2023. Open the door Richard…… Thank you, for inviting me, Richard......
Not at all. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
From nature point of view dna and rna are 2 part of the same thing so dna is actually part of the mechanism involve in reading itself . dna is a code but it's also part of the machine that read the code, in the broad sense (as opposed to a book where the reader is the machine that read the book..
It was not only his general theory that was almost entirely lacking in any direct empirical support, but his special theory was also largely dependent on circumstantial evidence. A striking witness to this is the fact that nowhere was D arwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature, let alone having been responsible for the creation of a new species. *A Theory in Crisis* *Michael Denton*
Hi Ray. Darwin is 160 years ago. Scientists and researchers have now witnessed and observed natural selection producing speciation events. So NEW species have been observed, occurring both in nature and in the lab. So your Michael Denton is completely behind the times, about 100 years behind!
@@budd2nd Darwin is 160 years ago. Scientists and researchers have now witnessed and observed natural selecti on producing speciation events. So NEW species have been observed, You must be referring to the Harvard bacteria experiment its not possible to observe a process that assumingly took place millions of years
He just makes things up since he really does not care about science. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
No, just dna. Religious people have one answer to a bunch of questions, it’s always “god” but these are two different questions; one is cosmology, the other is biology.
At 5:30, Mr. Dawkins too quickly dismisses the argument of the ID apologist from Chicago at 5:26 as being circular. It's actually not circular, it's an argument by induction; that all other examples of information encoding that we see are actions of intelligent entities (humans), therefore this new example of encoding (RNA) should also be the action of an intelligent entity. The apologists implies, but does not state, that this entity his preferred god concept. One error in this argument is an unwarranted assumption of a particular god entity whose existence has not been independently established. But that is only an error in the implied conclusion. More fundamentally, the apologist displays confirmation bias in not considering other examples of information encoding. For instance, footprints, scent residues, disturbed vegetation and blood spoor all encode information about a prey animal's path, which information can be decoded by a predator or scavenger seeking a protein meal; but there was no intelligent intent to encode that information for use by another entity. Additionally, the apologist makes a category error by assuming the information encoding in RNA is the same type that we humans use to communicate abstract information to our future selves, or to other humans separated in time and space. RNA is not required to have a an intelligent encoder, and evidently does not have any intelligent decoder by design. The decoding operation is a mindless one of protein synthesis or replication initiated at the proper time by the other life processes of the organism. The argument for vitalism published in 1931 by Singer, and quoted at 6:57, is essentially an abandonment of the practice of science. It is the same decision made by Isaac Newton when he stopped investigating the behavior of the planets. Paraphrased, it states, "here I observe something that goes beyond my ability to explain with the information I have so far. My response is not to continue gathering evidence from demonstrable reality, but to ascribe it to a supernatural cause (God, life, psyche), which cannot be examined or tested." Thus the speaker has retired from the practice of science, and leaves it to others to continue investigating this aspect of the natural world. My criticism of Singer's passage may be a bit too harsh, but still, he is erroneously claiming that because he cannot make a gene function in the absence of the environment on which it normally operates, that it therefore is ultimately different from other natural systems and fundamentally mysterious. He has given up.
Footprints, scent residues, disturbed vegetation, blood spoors, tree rings, etc. aren’t examples of ENCODED information. They might CONVEY information because they are examples of indexical signs. An index is something that signifies something else due to an existential causal relation between it and the thing that it signifies. Eg. You know that smoke signifies fire because you are familiar with the natural causal relation between fire and smoke. If you didn’t know about that causal relation then smoke would not be a sign of fire to you. A symbolic sign, on the other hand, is something that signifies/represents something else due to an arbitrary convention or rule (eg. names, flags, words, traffic signals, etc). There is no existential, natural causal reason why a red light should represent “STOP” to you. You only know that ir means “STOP” because you know the convention/rule that says it means “STOP”. A code is a collection or system of symbols (eg. the particular sequence of dits (dit-dit-dit) is a symbol for the letter “S”, and the complete collection of dit & dah sequences together make up the Morse code. A footprint, a scent residue, disturbed vegetation, etc…these are all examples of single signs, not systems of signs, so they already are not codes. More pertinently, they are indexes, not symbols. Codes are systems of symbols, not of indexes.
@@basharun I can accept your definition of encoding. And by that definition, RNA is not encoded information, but indexes. This attacks more fundamentally the apologist's error of viewing RNA as encoded information, which makes the assumption of communication from a supernatural agency totally without foundation.
@@DanceSeek Whether or not DNA or RNA is (or contains) encoded information depends on whether or not the convention it's "written" in (ie. the Standard Genetic Code) is a real code. According to Crick's Sequence Hypothesis it is a real code (which is the universally accepted and only scientific explanation for protein synthesis). That means that if you want to say that it isn't a real code because it's indexical then the scientific onus is on you to either give an alternative explanation for protein synthesis that doesn't rely on the existence of a code, or you have to prove that it is indexical, which will require you to give a definitive explanation for the origin of the SGC. But, since OoL scientists currently don't have such an explanation, for you to emphatically assert that it IS indexical is a question begging fallacy.
@@basharun Interesting that when your definition of code is turned against the assumption of encoded information in RNA, you then move the goalposts, requiring a "real code" (whatever that means) and that for some reason an explanation for the origin of the genetic code is required. Its origin is irrelevant. The biochemical correspondence between nucleotide triplets and amino acids is well understood, it's not an arbitrary association of symbols. It's against the principle of parsimony to assume a receiving intelligence, a transmitting intelligence, or any message at all when such assumptions are not needed to explain the model.
@@DanceSeek There’s no moving of goalposts and you seem to be avoiding the point made to you. You’ve made an implied claim (that the SGC is indexical) and I’ve explained how and why your claim is question-begging and how and why it depends on the explanation for the origin of the code . Not addressing that explanation at all (but simply complaining about moving the goalpost) is fallacious reasoning, Also, the fact that there may be indexical, non-arbitrary connections between each link in a chain of components within a channel has no bearing on determining whether a code is involved or not. That’s actually one of the points made in this video. Most, if not ALL, codes operate in systems where there is indexical, non-arbitrary causal “correspondence” between every link in the chain. So your point about biochemical correspondence between nucleotide triplets and amino acids is irrelevant and doesn’t validate your claim at all. Again, if you want to claim that the SGC is indexical then the scientific onus is on you to prove that, and you can only do that by explaining the origin of the SGC. You haven’t addressed or disputed this, so your complaint about parsimony is an argument from incredulity.
Hi Kristen. Scientists say that DNA was not designed because of its flaws and mistakes. These flaws show evidence of a gradual accumulation of functions, badly organised together. No “designer” would do that. As to how DNA evolved, it is thought to be itself evolved, from the far simpler RNA.
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence. ... _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com) _"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data) *”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov) *_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov) Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
I love to see this union of science and animation. I would also love to see his science books made into an animated documentary series, with each episode as educational as it is entertaining. Even the Professor’s life story could be made into a movie - “The Durrells in Corfu”, why not “The Dawkins in Africa” ? Stephen Hawking had two features made about his life, isn’t it about time Richard Dawkins’s entertaining biography was made into a film as well ?. Perhaps a combination of live action and animation. I wonder who should play the lead role ?
I'd love to see a union of science and Dawkins but he doesn't care much about science. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Dawkins: “Well it’s a classic circular argument. Your friend…said “All the codes we know come from design”. Well, it’s not true. We know the DNA code, it doesn’t come from design, and he’s simply going round in a circle there. It really does deal the killing blow to vitalism.” This is a strange response from Dawkins because there is an obvious logical problem with it: It seems to me what Dawkins is implying here is that “We know” definitively that the genetic code was NOT caused by intelligent or directed agency because “We know” that it was caused by undirected, natural processes. But in order to know definitively that it was caused by an undirected, natural process we obviously need to know what that process actually is. That is, we need to have a definitive explanation for the origin of the genetic code. Yet It’s not an uncontroversial fact that OoL scientists investigating the origin of the genetic code don’t have any definitive answers to this problem. One of the leading researchers in this field, Eugene Koonin, for example, wrote: “Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.” (Eugene V. Koonin and Artem S. Novozhilov, Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma. 2009). And in his 2017 review article on the status of this problem Koonin asks in the introduction: ““Why are the codon assignments what they are? In other words, why is it the case that, for instance, glycine is encoded by GGN codons rather than, say, CCN codons (the latter of which encode proline in the SGC)?” “Evolution of the code is intimately linked to the origin and evolution of the translation apparatus itself, and this is one of the most fundamental and hardest problems in all of biology.” And in the conclusion of this same review article he writes: “Notwithstanding the complete transformation of biology that occurred over these decades, we do not seem to be much closer to the solution. Recalling the list of “why” questions we asked in the introduction, we find that it is hardly possible to answer any of them definitively.” (Eugene V. Koonin and Artem S. Novozhilov, “Origin and Evolution of the Universal Genetic Code”, Annual Review Of Genetics, Vol. 51:45-62. So, if OoL scientists investigating the very question about how the genetic code came about don’t have any definitive answers, and if they acknowledge that “it is hardly possible” to answer this question definitively, then Dawkins is actually making a classic circular argument himself.
It would have been better to say that, since we don’t know the origin of DNA, it is at best a weak argument from induction to say that it must be intelligently designed because we know that some other codes were designed. At worst it’s a fallacious argument from analogy.
@@Detson404 1. The argument is about the origin of the genetic code, not about the origin of DNA. By analogy: If you were to argue that the Rosetta Stone is the result of intelligent agency then your argument would be about the origin of the apparent code (ie. the symbolic markings) found on the stone, not about the origin of the stone itself. Eg. You might be able to provide a definitive explanation for the stone via purely natural, non-intelligent processes (eg. soil erosion), but does soil erosion explain how the symbolic markings got there? No. 2. I don’t think anybody is arguing that “SOME other codes were designed, therefore the genetic code was designed”. The argument is actually that “ALL codes are intelligently designed, and the genetic code is a code, therefore the genetic code was intelligently designed”. Using the same analogy again: Nobody reasons that SOME symbolic markings/writing are intelligently designed, therefore the Rosetta Stone markings are intelligently designed. What we actually say is that ALL symbolic markings/writing are intelligently designed, and there are symbolic markings/writing on the Rosetta Stone, therefore those markings were intelligently designed. 3. The argument explained above is a deductive argument. (That is, P1: ALL codes are intelligently designed. P2: X is a code. Conclusion: Therefore, X was intelligently designed). It clearly isn’t an inductive argument, so your suggestion that it’s a “weak argument from induction” doesn’t make sense. 4. You need to actually demonstrate how and why the argument “P1: ALL codes are intelligently designed. P2: X is a code. Conclusion: Therefore, X was intelligently designed” is a “fallacious argument from analogy”. You can’t just say that it is because then you’re making a bare assertion fallacy. Also, you’ll need to then explain why we don’t also regard the Rosetta Stone argument (ie. “P1: ALL symbolic markings/writing are intelligently designed. P2: The Rosetta Stone has symbolic markings/writing on it. Conclusion: Therefore, the Rosetta Stone markings were intelligently designed”) as an argument from analogy fallacy, but instead we regard it as perfectly valid reasoning. What’s the difference?
@@basharun 1. I see your point. I'm pretty much a materialist, though, so I'm not 100% sure that information is a "thing" outside its instantiation in something material. I'm more comfortable asking "how did this matter come to be in this arrangement." For the Rosetta stone, it's because somebody carved those symbols into it. For DNA, well.... 2. I acknowledge that what you said is a valid deductive argument. The problem is that science is not deductive, it is inductive. "All swans are white, this bird is a swan, therefore it is white," works perfectly well until you find a black swan. "All codes are produced by an intelligence, this is a code, therefore it was produced by an intelligence" is just the black swan fallacy. You could say "the next swan we find is probably going to be white, because we've only observed white swans," and that would be fine. You've also defined the idea of a natural code out of existence. You can do that...until we find one, and in the meantime you're needlessly excluding possibilities. "All light sources are chemical reactions, the sun is a light source, therefore the sun is a chemical reaction" is excluding the possibility that some light sources aren't chemical...people used to think the sun had only a few thousand years of life left until we found out that fusion was a thing. 3. Ditto. 4. Ditto. If we found the Rosetta stone today, we could say "we've only observed carved tablets with symbols resembling the Greek alphabet to come from humans, therefore it's reasonable to assume that this is a passage in Greek carved by a human."
@@Detson404 ///“I see your point. I'm pretty much a materialist, though, so I'm not 100% sure that information is a "thing" outside its instantiation in something material. I'm more comfortable asking "how did this matter come to be in this arrangement." For the Rosetta stone, it's because somebody carved those symbols into it. For DNA, well….”/// 1. What you’re saying is that you have a personal materialist worldview. Sure, that’s your prerogative. But suppose someone makes an argument like: “P1: All codes are made by intelligent agency. P2: X is a code. Conclusion: Therefore, X was made by intelligent agency”. If you then respond to that by saying “Well…I can’t accept that because it goes against my personal materialist philosophy, so I just can’t see how it could be possible”, then you are making an argument from personal incredulity fallacy and you’re not addressing the merits of that persons argument. 2. For the Rosetta Stone the fact that the markings were carved is not what’s pertinent. What’s pertinent is the fact that the markings, and the sequences of markings are symbolic. That is, If we find evidence symbols anywhere then THAT is what points to intelligent agency. ///“The problem is that science is not deductive, it is inductive.”/// Science uses inductive AND deductive reasoning, as well as abductive reasoning. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate hypothesis and theories, and deductive reasoning when applying them to specific situations. They also use abductive reasoning when trying to select the hypothesis that would best fit or explain observations. This reasoning is actually encapsulated in a general principle that Darwin subscribed to, ie. When determining the best explanation use the one that is based on causes “now known to be in operation”. Eg. We currently don’t have a natural mechanism as a candidate to explain the existence of symbolic text on the Rosetta Stone, but we do have a known cause for symbolic text…intelligent agency. So, since intelligent agency is a cause “now known to be in operation”, and there are currently no other explanations, it is the best explanation. This is perfectly valid as scientific reasoning. ///“All swans are white, this bird is a swan, therefore it is white," works perfectly well until you find a black swan. "All codes are produced by an intelligence, this is a code, therefore it was produced by an intelligence" is just the black swan fallacy.”/// 1. This goes to burden of proof. If it was empirically determined that all swans we’ve ever encountered are white, and we then discover the bones of a dead swan, then we can make a valid scientific inference that the dead swan was white. This sort of thing is done all the time in science. So if you then want to appose it and make a SCIENTIFIC argument that the dead swan was black, then you can’t present as evidence just your logic that it’s possible we could one day discover a black swan. In other words, the burden of proof doesn’t fall on us to prove that the swan was white. It falls on YOU to prove scientifically that it wasn’t white. Similarly, if all codes we’ve ever encountered are products of intelligent agency, and if we determine that the genetic code is a code, then we can make a valid scientific inference that it was made by/with intelligently agency and the burden falls on you to prove that it didn’t (either by proving that not all codes are made with intelligent agency, or by proving that the genetic code isn’t a code). 2. You could regard what I explained in (1) above as a scientific type argument: “All codes we’ve ever empirically observed were intelligently designed, therefore it is valid to infer that any new code will be intelligently designed”. However, I think another argument can be made based on logic and that is a more serious problem for you: That is: All codes are made by/with intelligent agency, not just because this is a valid scientific inference based on all previous empirical evidence, but more seriously because it is a logical necessity. For example, consider the proposition “All bachelors are unmarried”. We could say this is a valid scientific inference based on all bachelors we’ve ever encountered, so it’s a scientific type argument. But more importantly, it must be true as a matter of logical necessity. That’s because it’s an analytic proposition: bachelors, by definition, are unmarried. It isn’t logically possible to have a married bachelor. So, we don’t even need to go out and look for scientific evidence. We know that “All bachelors are unmarried” MUST be true, and it isn’t logically possible for scientific evidence to overrule or refute this. “All swans are white”, in contrast, is not an analytic proposition. It is synthetic, ie. A swan is not white by definition, so the colour of a swan is a matter for empirical evidence to decide. However, the proposition “All symbols are made by/with intelligence” is an analytic proposition. And the proposition “All codes are systems of symbols” is also an analytic proposition. So you then have P1: All symbols are made with intelligent agency. P2: All codes are systems of symbols. Conclusion: All codes are made with intelligent agency”. For a more detailed elaboration of this, see my answer here: www.quora.com/Does-the-fact-that-DNA-is-a-code-prove-that-it-was-developed-by-an-intelligent-being/answer/Rasheed-Larney?fbclid=IwAR0bhsT-EUXftfsrOgoFL1rwud9RilwqzuV9HVEwzEqRLYbkHGeGBza9hFo ///“If we found the Rosetta stone today, we could say "we've only observed carved tablets with symbols resembling the Greek alphabet to come from humans, therefore it's reasonable to assume that this is a passage in Greek carved by a human.””/// 1. We could use countless other analogies where “carving” isn’t relevant, so don’t focus on the wrong thing. 2. We could reasonably imagine beings other than humans could also make those symbolic markings, eg. well trained apes, or perhaps alien beings from another planet, etc. So, to be precise, we should identify the particular feature of humans (that is not logically and necessarily unique to humans) that enable them to make those markings. Clearly it isn’t our peculiar shape, or size, or colour that gives us that ability. As a matter of logical necessity, the feature responsible for the ability to make symbols is intelligence. That’s also the common feature we can conceive of in other beings like apes or aliens. So the correct, precise thing we can say about the Rosetta Stone markings is that they were made with intelligent agency. That is, we can and do recognise that for ANY being or agent (whether we know that being exists or not) to be able to make those markings, that being must have intelligence. Whether it’s HUMAN or not is irrelevant. So humans are known to make patterns like this by human intelligent agency. But it isn’t a logical necessity that it can only be humans. If we did not already know that humans existed and made those markings, then, while we would not be able to know what specific agent caused them, we still would be able to validly conclude that whoever or whatever that agent is, it must, as matter of logical necessity, have intelligence.
The party’s over, it’s time to call it a day They’ve burst your pretty balloon, they’ve taken the moon away Take off your makeup, your masquerade, it’s time to breakup The piper must be paid
@@Detson404 well, let's see, nature can't create nature but to you, nature created time, space, and matter. I'm not aware of such evidence, do give it. At least try. The world needs laughter.
Though I'm not a believer in gods, winged angels, and demons, I still can't get past the fact that a maple seed will only (and always) grow a maple tree. The information of and for life is so rigid that it's hard to buy into life as a system created by purely random chance. If life were purely random then a seed would sprout a tree where one branch would grow leaves while another branch spawned caterpillars. Another branch would spew orange juice, while yet another would grow bird feathers. The information within seeds, eggs, and sperm is so fixed that it is very much like a computer program; hence, a designer.
No one in biology claims it is random. What alleles change IS random, but which ones continue on in the population is not. A maple seed doesn't always and only grow a maple tree; it always and only grows a near, yet not perfect, copy of its ancestor. "Maple Tree" is just a human label for those groups that are similar to the ancestor and the seed.
@@devb9912 you misfits can't get past creation so you should shut up with what came afterward. You're such jokes. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block *"Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing.""* Dawkins is a biologist, not a cosmologist. He doesn't teach anything about the universe. Grow up.
Plants do experience random mutations, which can be selectively bred to create new plants. Cabbage, cauliflower, Brussel sprouts, kale and more are all descendants of the same wild plant. And yet, a child cabbage will look just like it’s parent, a distinct cabbage plant. No caterpillar cabbage yet.
People who think this was a good conversation did not actually pay any attention to RD's facial expressions and his voice tones. Either that or, after knowing his ethical views, i despise him too much to be able to blissfully ignore that he has an obsessive compulsion to sound superior to JP and every single scientist/inventor quoted in this conversation.
Yes, Darwin trained to be a priest and was a Christian. He believed in god for much of his life, although he did start to have some doubts about his faith. That is well known and doesn't really have any bearing on his scientific work. As for Sagan, I'm not sure.
No Carl Sagan always kept believing about life in the universe. It doesn't mean intelligent but because of chemistry which is the same all across the universe, that was an unshakable scientific fact that he knew life had billions of chances of being born in the rest of the universe. Ann Druyan continued his work, you can double check.
@@CG_Hali Richard was clueless from the start, creation, and just continued with what followed. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@eoghainokeeffe3274 Darwin lost his faith in Christianity quite early on, probably two decades or so before Origin was published, about the same time as his ideas of evolution germinated. In later life he described himself as agnostic. In any case he didn't believe in a personal god that has our interests in mind, as he makes clear in his letter about a species of wasp laying their eggs in live caterpillars.
Darwin was deist or agnostic after her daughter death. Carl Sagan... I don't know, he was agnostic and didn't believe in afterlife and supernatural but I don't know about aliens.
Do any of you really believe DNA could have been created by some random means? He said it's "very easy" to do. So why hasn't someone managed to do it in the half century or so they have been trying to do this very thing. Many attempts have been made under sterile laboratory conditions. They know the proper sequence of the amino acids needed to make a particular strand. The lowest number of sequenced amino acids in one of the strands needed for life has 150 characters. The most anyone has managed to get to bond together in a lab is 9, that's right, "nine." Then the string just falls apart. And they don't know why. They know the types of amino acids needed, and how they are sequenced...................but nobody has ever managed to make one even though they had all the parts, and knew where to put each one. But nobody, including Dawkins, has never even come close to succeeding. And yet he will still sit there and tell people it's "EASY." Not to mention the innermost workings of the simplest cell. I think you guys need a new messiah.............because this guy is lying to your face.........and he knows it.
Richard Dawkins calls the DNA's quaternary code a 'little bit' more complicated than the computer's binary code. A little bit? The DNA is much more complicated. It can be read backwards along with forward. It can work by offsetting a few frames [codons] and go forward or backward once again and make a different needed protein. The theory of evolution's proponents use this simplifying. It's misdirection by simplifying. He tries to simplify the self-arranging of the complexity of the DNA sequences as being 'saved' by natural selection. Natural selection must select something intelligent...an intelligence in which are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. Natural selection does not save self-assembling biological codes. They do still have an intelligent design signature to them. These two talk like there is just one code involved in living cells. Not true. There are FIVE codes. There is the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the lipid code of cell membranes, and the 'sugar code' that are on the surfaces of the cells. This more than a catch 22. It's a 'catch 55' needing to come together all at the same time for life to succeed. Again...natural selection can't save the theory of evolution with all of this complexity. What does natural selection select? It selects the epigenome's gene modifications without evolution's DNA mutation-engine. This again fits the intelligent design signature. The proteins are not simple either. They have to fold perfectly to make a needed product for life in the cell within a split second...or up to four seconds depending on the complexity. Manmade supercomputers TIED together takes WEEKS to duplicate the feat! This probably should be called the sixth code. I mentioned the epigenome code above. It is from this already built-in biological code that adaptations and trait passing comes from...passing for HUNDREDS of generations without DNA mutations being involved. Not credited to do so by evolutionary scientists until 2014. The epigenome works like a software program running overtop the DNA hardware program. See this catch 22 working along with the other three codes? Here is a cut and paste...and a link describing the epigenome. www.dictionary.com › browse › epigenomeEpigenome Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Epigenome definition, a network of chemical compounds surrounding DNA that modify the genome without altering the DNA sequences and have a role in determining which genes are The epigenome's multi-generational adaptation and trait passing capability does not involve evolving of DNA sequences but is a biological system with standing-already-there capability. It takes cues from the environment such as new diets, new environments, and new threats and modifies into new things like the beak of the Darwin Finch or bacteria coming onto new antibiotic resistance. This new information is passed on in the female's eggs AND the male's seminal fluid that the sperm swims in. This newly 2014-credited epigenome's ability was miscalled as being 'evidence' for the ASSUMED EVOLVING OF DNA MUTATIONS miscalled 'microevolution'. All of the macroevolution schemes were built on these two miscalled precepts. The 'engine' for evolution is therefore missing 'under the hood'. Wrong precepts makes the evolution's concept impossible. Evolution's proposed way of evolving does not make it to first base. This makes macroevolution's home runs just a mind construct. You must run to first base to proceed to touch all the bases in your homerun trot. How does the epigenome software code work in conjunction with the DNA code? Let's do an analogy of a new built car. A new car has the same 'hardware' as a pre-1970 car of the engine, the pistons, and the drive shaft. Let's call that the 'DNA' of the two cars. In a high-end new car there are up to a hundred computers and a 150 computer chips. This we will call the 'epigenome' of the new high-end car. These feed information into the engine for precision of its workings. This is like how the epigenome-DNA relationship works in life. There you go! I give you science showing we are a creation. Your evolution scientists and academic mentors give you scientism. The Creator? Jesus Christ. Here is a 4 minute video describing the TRUE gospel... ruclips.net/video/Wh1VU-_OF98/видео.html
Non of your comment acts as POSITIVE evidence FOR us or a gnome being “created”. Not unless you are saying that nature created it. Are you saying that?
Sorry I started typing before finished reading your comment. You are obviously claiming that a God (you call it Jesus Christ) created us. Then you need to provide positive evidence for your claim. Poking holes in existing science won’t get you there.
@@drsatan9617 you are not logical or else you would have shown how DNA just came about on its own. But anyone that thinks that, does not think much. Oh, that's YOU!
Our living systems are all a combination of digital and analogy attributes. In terms of intelligence the digital part is more important because it is a deciding between specific choices. If, at the lowest levels, we could not specifically make a choice then intelligence would not work. However, it sounds like Dawkins is saying there is no analog elements to how DNA works as an intelligent system and this is not true. There is a lot of analog elements involved which are critical, understanding the quantum scales DNA functions in should make that clear, it is just what is important to us is the very strong discrete decision making capability of DNA. Dawkins is also very incorrect about saying that DNA does not come from design. Dawkins is stuck in the religious like dogmatic belief of Neo-Darwinism which has been repeatedly proven incorrect within science for decades, but the dogmatic incorrect belief of Neo-Darwinism has continued to dominate and suppress the real scientific truth in this. There is a two way flow of information between the genome and the whole of the living intelligent system using that genome. We have scientifically proven this over and over. We have incredible leading edge science and technology using this truth, yet despite that the dogmatic belief in a proven incorrect one way flow of information from the genome up continues to dominate mainstream science. Living organisms from viruses up intelligently design their own evolutionary development in a similar manner to how a language is intelligently designed across many generations of humans by the humans using that language and their intelligent decision making as it effects that languages development.
Yet another major mistake Dawkins makes, in my opinion, is this being STUCK on the selfish gene, because while it is not unreasonable to describe ONE PIECE of the complex intelligent behavior of life with this idea of the selfish gene, so to is the unselfish gene. This is the same extreme error as trying to state all motivations for people are based upon a single driver like "selfishness" or that all morality should be based off a single maxim like "maximizing happiness and well-being for all people". Both are wrong, because they are not complex enough to reflect the reality we live in. A great example of where this selfish gene idea gets shattered is the amazing research being done on the intelligent behavior of individual cells within a multicellular organism and learning the language of the cells, so that we do not have to know everything about how the insides of a cell work in order to get the cell to work for us. Instead, all we need to do is learn the correct messages to give a cell and that cell can then do all kinds of things for us. One of the elements of this research, being done at Tufts University by Michael Levin and his team is the selfless gene that operates within cells so long as the communication signals are working so that the cells understand they are part of the larger organism, for which those cells will sacrifice themselves to support the larger whole group. This selfless intelligent behavior is seen on virtually all scales of cellular life. But, if you break down the communication between some cells and the whole body, those cells then stop thinking they are part of the whole body, instead view that body as external, and turn cancerous. So, yes, there is a proverbial "Selfish Gene" but so to there is a proverbial "Selfless Gene".
In conversation with people who understand evolution, Dawkins often uses "natural selection" as shorthand for the combined process of "descent with modification acted upon by natural selection". It is this joint process that does produce things. I agree with you, though, that just saying "natural selection" could confuse students who are new to the concept of evolution by natural selection.
@@StatedCasually Dawkins uses lies. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Dawkins DNA _"is a code it's definitely a code and it is a code that's put together not by a designer but by natural selection. Its easy to see how that can happen in principle, details of course have to be worked out"_ Perry quoting a creationist _"DNA is code all codes we know were designed therefore the genetic code was designed"_ Dawkins answer _"well that's classic circular argument he said all codes we know come from a design, well its not true the DNA code is not from design"_ If the DETAILS are yet to be WORKED OUT then what we KNOW is we *DON'T KNOW* that DNA code was not designed and certainly cannot claim DNA evolved naturally from physical processes as the *TRUTH!*
All you’d have to do to prove him wrong is find some evidence of a god. It should be easy, if god does things there should be evidence. He’s omnipotent, he could show up to every single person on earth right now and it would literally be effortless.
@@Detson404 It is and He has but you're not looking for God and worse still expect one you that you invented! Proof of God is literally everywhere you look.. its all around you! Try this: Find ONE WORD that describes everything you see!
@@Jewonastick Avoiding the question by jumping into your own morality which has no basis without God to prove God doesn't exist is circular vacuous nonsense! Just try to ANSWER the question.
'It's a code, it looks like a code , it feels like a code, if a computer scientist was asked what was a code he would say it was a code... but its natural. Its like methane. Jesus.
I dont think Darwin looks sad in that picture, he looks great like an old chimpanzee, Dawkins was projecting. Also Dawkins should not dismiss ideas such as those now posited by many physicists regarding simulation hypothesis, as bollocks, heroes of his such as Sagan spoke of the possibility.
Yes, we are primates after all! The simulation stuff is just unfalsifiable navel gazing. Even if true it could never be proven. It’s the kind of thing you think about once while high and never bother with again.
Yes, pure clueless. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block you will never find or be able to detect any proof of the supernatural by any mechanical/ electronic methods He can be known only by undivided love . And When you love a person you do devotional services .
@@food4lifecycle4life 1. Host is not atheist 2. Supernatural can be observed and detected- psychic powers, pararrel realms, miracles- all those things can be observed
Nothing has changed. Whatever we are, it’s what we’ve always been for our whole existence as a species. Knowing more doesn’t retroactively make anything less or more true.
In the case of computer code, there are basically 1s and 0s, but write this code as much as you want, unless there is a mind to make sense of it, this code makes no sense. Only a programmer/hardware designer can give meaning to those ones and zeros. Now I ask: Who gave this meaning to the codes that make up the human genome? Let's say this code is generated by chance or random mutations. So, who gave the meaning that emerged as a result of this formation to those codes? Think about it this way, I thought of a computer code in my head, what is the meaning of these codes if there is no structure that will make sense of this code, that is, the hardware structure of the computer processor? So I need to design that structure that gives meaning to code which is in my head right? Finally, imagine that I am throwing off the keywords of any programming language out of my head. So what's the point of these codes if you don't have the hardware to run it? The point is not that the codes cannot occur randomly, the issue is why these codes are put together in a certain way, then a certain meaning is attached and as a result, they do a job. Just as a language designer attributes meaning to certain keywords when they come together in a certain order, this DNA code must have been given meaning by a superior mind. And you can not answer this by scientific ways. You can only say "well, nature gave this meaning" and this answer is no different from my "God gave it that meaning" answer. So you can't accuse me of being unscientific. At most, you would have given a philosophical answer. As you can see, you can't answer everything with science. I advise you to research how computers and programming languages work. So you will understand very well what I mean.
You asked “So Who gave this meaning to the codes that make up the genome?” I think you’re getting bogged down with the idea, that up until now WE have been the only ones that we knew of using codes. But nature got there long before us. Natures own requirements for survival, produced a code as an emergent property. That simple code (simple to begin with at least) and the need to COPY itself. Is why DNA code evolved. Unless a separate “programmer, creator” is discovered your position on this, is unfounded. Conjecture at best but certainly not a persuasive argument.
@@budd2nd It doesn't matter that only we use code or not. Question of the origin of the code still applies. Those ones and zeros mean nothing unless a computer scientist assigns the corresponding meaning to zeros and ones. Well, if these certain DNA nucleotide sequences come together in a certain order and amount, it develops a function with a purpose, then this meaning was assigned to it by a programmer. You say that the meanings of these codes are assigned by nature, I say that the meanings of these codes are assigned by a superior mind beyond nature.
@@electricity2703 I don’t think there is “meaning”, not in the sense that you are using the word. A better word would be “results”. The results give a survival advantage. If an organism doesn’t survive then it isn’t likely to reproduce and to multiply. Is it? So it is the results that nature favours. I personally think that meaning is an emergent property of a thinking mind. Nature doesn’t have a thinking mind. Not physics, chemistry or biology. That is very evident. So using the word “meaning” is not helpful here.
@@electricity2703 I personally think that meaning is a human construct. It is a way of mentally framing OUR goals and desires. And a way of discussing them.
For someone so preoccupied with reproductive success, I wonder if Richard Dawkins was ever a sperm donor ? He has the best of genes: for intelligence, altruism, health and attractiveness. He was impossibly handsome (see his inspiring Christmas lectures back in 1991), and as octogenarian, is still going strong today - even after his stroke back in 2016. It’s a relief to see his mind is still as sharp as ever. If our Professor is fortunate enough to have inherited his parents’ genes for longevity he’ll be with us for many years to come - thank goodness.
dawkins makes a classic mistake, where he wants to believe so much he is right that he misinterprets the facts of reality to suit him, exactly the same as the guy he tried to debunk. its true that most code we know of is made by us, but as far as where dna comes from and who created it, we must neither say it was made by noone(nature/who made nature?) or that it was made by god, we must simply say: i dont know, i dont have the fucking slightest clue if any intelligence made dna or it was simply something that happens naturally in this universe, similar to rock formations and oceans. similarly one might wonder, is it possible that some intelligence made this reality/universe? is it something that could make itself? again you might think about it for a million years, but at the current time, we have not enough data to even begin to answer these types of questions, we simply need more technologies that will eventually hopefully be able to produce relevant data, and when we have relevant data the answer will be obvious
We don't know how DNA originated, but we do know how it diversified to produce the life on this planet now, because that is what the theory of evolution by natural selection is all about.
@@rukiichi85We don’t know. If you want to claim something did it, you need to do more than poke holes in science, you need empirical evidence of that thing.
Mr Dawkins I have heard most of your video clips with Ernest interest and read all the books you have published . Sorry but you have not been able to convince me an iota . I am absolutely convinced that I will not be able to make any sense to you but i will give it a go . Conciousnes is not the product of the brain . You have no evidence whatsoever. On the other hand the brain functions because of the presence of consciousness which is the symptom of the soul . At death the soul leaves the body . This experience of divinity is a personal endeavor and thus remains personal. These practices would not have survived for thousands of yrs . You cannot see the subtle body which is mind /intelligence and the ego ( your identification ) yet you know it exists . The soul which is even more subtle is the only non physical component in the body . Science cannot capture this only personal endeavor can …
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 the mind maybe the property of the brain . But not consciousness . Not in a million yrs . Consciousness is the symptom of the soul . Non physical
@@food4lifecycle4life No evidence of souls, divinity, nor consciousness not being a product of the brain. Look into neuroscience for the proof we have of the mind being an emergent property of brains. Personal endeavor does not count. Go prove your bald assertions; start with souls existing and take it from there.
the Sqwaukins of Dawkins assumes what it tries to prove - we know that evolution is true, so DNA evolved, the information in DNA came about by random undirected means - just like Shakespeare wrote plays by randomly picked letters out of a bag, and just like software programmers code by random typing on a keyboard.
Your analogy is flawed: Shakespeare didn't write millions of versions of Hamlet. I could pick at it further, but it seems you don't know what evolution is and how different the process is from creating a book, so that'd most likely be a pointless exercise.
*_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)
That was the first interview with Richard Dawkins where i saw him in real conversation mode. When he said "Can i get a book to read you a chapter?" and he dashed off to find it I realised he was enjoying himself & not just doing some PR recommended by his agent. We saw the "Sunday afternoon just after dinner with a glass of port" Richard Dawkins and it was a real treat! Thank you!
My head is full of that huge cascade of influence from the molecular level through proteins, blood, muscle, skin, scales & feathers, to brains and thence out into this cosmos and possibly out into the multiverse if our trajectory holds true.
All from that first replicator "in a warm little pond".
You must be so proud of dolt Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Because this is Richard Dawkins. He asks questions too when being interviewed. He is genuinely engaged in any conveesation he's having.
Fascinating conversation. Really appreciate the both of you
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block
I don’t agree with your appeal to “real science”.
I think you are searching desperately to try and find a way to define your need for a God into a Scientific necessity.
The evidence does not support your claims though. As our understanding of quantum mechanics has increased we have seen particles pop in and out of existence within protons. As they pop in and out of existence they leave behind matter. The tiniest particles of matter but newly created matter nevertheless.
@@budd2nd for laughs, copy and paste any parts of your joke reply that got around the laws I gave. Do it or just admit you love being a loser.
@@2fast2block
I’m not your Wikipedia, do some research for yourself!
Scientists have yet to understand the singularity that caused Big Bang.
So NO ONE can say anything scientific about it.
You are just using the “god of the gaps” fallacy.
Any question, especially a science-based one, has to have a quantifiably correct answer, that is verifiable.
Just wanting something to be true doesn’t in fact make it true. No matter how heart felt your yearning is.
@@budd2nd it's clear you want to throw out proven science we know in hopes the laws of nature will change for you the brat because you don't like what they prove. Your way is if you don't like it then ignore it no matter how proven so you can have hopes it will all change for clueless you. Then keep on hoping as you lie in your empty life going nowhere. It's your life.
I can listen to Richard Dawkins all day non-stop. Intellectually satisfying!
That's because you're clueless too.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Me too, it’s a pity so many people can’t listen to his scientific conversations because they can’t get past his atheism
@@Notalloldpeople I can't get past his stooo-pid, as I already showed.
@@2fast2blockbro cry hard you don’t know much evolution and Big Bang
I'm very impressed by your interviewing techniques. So conversation-like, easy to follow for the interested layman, but also rich in detail. I'd watch this on tv no kidding
That's because you're clueless too like those that follow Richard.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
I have read Dawkins for the first time 35 years ago. Read several of his books since, and also watched many interviews from him. This was one of the best. Thank you for making this video.
No, he's just a nitwit.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
2:50 I just love the fact that when you quote the highlighted part, you also give the context. Way too often people take text out of context and it can be misunderstood even if properly quoted when the context is guessed wrong.
@12:00 a fun fact about those American Hollerith punch cards: they were the size they were because they were invented in part to do the 1890 census count, and there were money holders already in existence, so they made the cards the same size as the dollar bill. Which was that dimension till 1929, when the money was reduced to the standard we have presently.
Oh, I'm so happy he's looking so well. Looks fully recovered from the stroke touch wood. What an asset to the pro-science, rationality movement that man is.
It's great hearing two biologists talk about computer science. Although Dawkins undoubtedly has a fine grasp of the subject. "Toolbox" is now referred to as a library, terminology aside, it's precisely the same thing today as then. There's just more of it.
@David Murphy And more and more layers of it! RUclips (for the user) for example has:
1) A web framework - Which is handling the overall shape and structure of the page
2) JavaScript, HTML, CSS and some sort of backend remote server - Which is what that framework is based on or talks to for data
3) A web browser - Which is where this box I am typing into lives and which controls the rendering of the above layers
4) Application C++ - Which the web browser is built with
5) An Operating System's UI library - Which the core widgets that the C++ application uses live in, which controls everything from how text is rendered to the framework around the application and all of those components
6) An Operating System - Which provides the underlying basic tools that the UI library is built on
7) A Kernel - Which provides the simplest core components that an OS is built on
8) The hardware instruction set - ARM, RISC-V, x86; these are the languages the machines understand
Maybe more
@@DampeS8N That's a very nice list. A kernel is very low, I'd probably see it as an api first and foremost, but I see where you're coming from.
Tip of the cap to a fellow dev. :)
He's pro-clueless about science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block lol
Oh My Evolution it's professor Dawkins!
Beautiful and informative conversation delivered with precise clarity. I love the way RD self corrects with the insertion of ‘Probable’ and ‘possible’ - the humility of a scientist.
He's a liar, get over it.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Dawkins is truly an amazing author! His books are so clear and elegant.
Filled with lies because clueless people like you believe him.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
how have I only found this now. waht. I think im in dream land. fascinating. I would have paid for this.great interview technique and explanations.
How you managed to not straight up fan girl out is beyond me. You had an intellectual conversation with RICHARD FUCKING DAWKINS man! How awesome is that?!
I stumbled upon Richards Xmas lectures around 2007..? I was 25 years old, had an 9th grade education, a young earth creationist, just straight up stupid. Richards Xmas lectures had inspired me to get my GED and go to college. I was disappointed with college, no instructor was ever able to even come close to instilling that sense of awe and wonder like Richard did for me.
Great conversation
Yeah, two jokes who are clueless.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2blockcry hard kid
Learning about neural networks and genetic algorithms gives one a great appreciation for the nuances of natural selection and evolution.
It will be dream come true to see Prof Dawkins☺️☺️
Wow! I would be such in awe of Richard I would not even know a good question to ask. But to see you so comfortably speaking with someone of his stature shows how knowledgeable you are for a guy who is 'just a graphic designer'. Now I am in awe of you.
Haha, thanks. Well, graphic design was my major in college but I've been teaching genetics now for 9 years. I suppose that helped. It was a true honor to be able to do this with Dawkins. He's had a huge influence on my thinking in the field of genetics.
Excellent conversation Jon! Congrats!
Fascinating to learn that like computer programming, embryology uses "tool box routines" to build the organism!
Two brilliant minds worth listing to.
No, two jokes who can't follow basic science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block Is your god something or nothing?
@@benjamindover5676 how a misfit thinks this is a good reply to what Dawkins says and to the science I gave....
"Is your god something or nothing?"
That silly question somehow is good evidence to counter what I gave. This is the clueless mind of Dawkins followers. Always divert from what I wrote because you're stuck showing how empty you all are.
@@2fast2block You don't want to answer because it shows what a joke your believe in nonsense is.
@@benjamindover5676 tell me how your question that is a clear diversion to this got around what I wrote. You keep on leaving that out. Try to step out of your clueless empty life and give something of substance. You won't, you are in love being clueless. Dawkins would be proud of you though because he loves his clueless life too.
You got him as a guest?! I've watched your channel for years, I guess I missed how big it's gotten, lol. I can't believe I missed this episode.
Hold up, vitalism is still a thing? Man, I've never had someone try to pull that card. Then again, I'm a biologist and software engineer that built digital DNA models as a teen, so they would be fools to try it on me, lol! I think growing code is better than writing it personally even though I do both.
This is great! Thanks!
"a lot of New Age religion" That's an understatement! The problem that I notice with Dawkins is that he has difficulty meeting people where they are in their beliefs. He just re-states what is obvious in his mind that vitalism has been killed instead of explaining why this medical student is misinformed or misguided in her beliefs. But we must admit that her beliefs are far more prevalent and popular across the global, human population than the idea of a mechanical, mindless universe.
@42:20 ... in his answer to this question, Dawkins reminds me of Hitchens in the way he uses his imagination and known information to explain a larger idea.
I always wanted Dr Dawkins to find out this channel.
I have always admired Richard. His father, Colyear, taught me statistics and in 1980 once demonstrated a rudimentary database of British grasses, or trees, that was codified on punched card. In this version a knitting needle or pencil served as a one factor binary operation ("retain" or "remove" cards from the pack) so that by repeated answering of yes/no questions led to a much reduced number of solutions (it might be this species, or suitable for this forest soil type) within the knowledge domain for which they cards were purposed, and greatly reducing the human effort to identify a species or perform multi-variate analysis. I was lost but not fearful, and remembered thinking that such cards did not, just, jump into existence.
Jon, I'm at time stamp 14:13, you found the tape helpful to see computers as machines. I work with ARM cpu & design for FPGA. It's the same thing in your smartphone. Just a lot more of it. The magic of your smartphone is an illusion. Not sure what all that fussing about "information" was. In terms of evolution, it's a plan. A plan to build something. Something that can hold the plan for it's own building, and do a bit more.
Great conversation, thanks for sharing and glad I was able to view it
Something we might ask ourselves is _why_ base 4 and not binary. Why is DNA not composed only of two symbols. And I think the answer here is that _it could be_ and it also could have more than 4 symbols. 4 probably works out to strike a fine balance between information stability and mutation rates. You need both.
I love hearing Dawkins talk
You love hearing clueless people like Richard. You are clueless too.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block Hi. As I understand it, 'nothing' in scientific terms carries a different connotation than from what you seem to be implying.
And my reading of Genesis seems to suggest that either the god in that book created everything from nothing (a claim upon which you throw considerable shade), or as the occasional theologian seems to suggest, there never was nothing, a point that lines up with the current working model in physics.
Your entropy explanation seems to suggest we're in a closed system. How did you determine this?
Cheers
Beautiful minds!
Really? You allowed ads that cut off Richard Dawkins midsentence?
One of the mistakes people make is to view terms such as "information" (and similarly "energy") as a physical entities like sand or atoms. But, information really just describes the role that something plays in certain types of interaction. For instance, when it is windy the branches of a tree bend in the direction of the wind. The tree has no inherent idea of wind direction itself, but we can use that *information* about the branches to understand the wind's direction. So clearly information doesn't come from minds, even given you need a mind to understand it; but then you need a mind to understand anything and DNA doesn't have one.
This is a lot of familiar stuff to me. My PhD focus is computer architecture, so I know how CPUs work at the circuit level. But I also studied a lot of AI and information science.
So then explain how we got the universe from nothing and we'll take it from there. Show me that you actually learned something in school rather than pretending you did.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block Cosmologists don't say the universe came from nothing. Richard Dawkins is not a cosmologist.
@@theosib so Richard can speak about what's he's clueless on and you're ok with that. Why you love being a clueless empty joke is beyond me.
"Cosmologists don't say the universe came from nothing."
Shove this up your behind and see if it reaches your head up there.
Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.”
Dawkins' "literally nothing": ruclips.net/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/видео.html
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book A Universe From Nothing that is something he prefers to call nothing. A nothing with space, matter, and time that somehow created space, matter, and time.
Krauss, “Some of this bothers people. But who cares? Quantum mechanics is illogical-just get over it.”
“But scientists have known for centuries that nothing is the key to understanding absolutely everything, from why particles have mass to the expansion of the universe - so without nothing we’d be precisely nowhere.” (New Scientist Promotions, 21 October 2013)
“We started from literally nothing; from empty spacetime containing solely the energy of the quantum vacuum, and have arrived at our Universe today, with its billions of galaxies, stars, and all that ever was or will be here on Earth. (The Physics of Nothing; The Philosophy of Everything, August 16, 2011)
Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
@@2fast2block Wow you sure wrote a lot. Its clear that you didn't read Krauss's book, because he wasn't referring to a philosophical nothing, and be has clarified that numerous times. There are some cosmological models that start with empty space, but that isn't really nothing. As for Dawkins talking out of his ass, he gets a lot of shit for that.
@@theosib I crushed you with science and showed how your joke scientists, including Krauss, DO talk about their nothing. You love lying in your silly empty life going nowhere.
"There are some cosmological models that start with empty space, but that isn't really nothing."
You not only lie to others, you lie to yourself. You are only good for providing laughter. Once you have space, you have matter and time also. Then you jokes call that nothing. THEN it somehow makes more. Life is a big joke to you, a joke.
Idea: Maybe we should say "DNA is a language" b/c it has some idiosyncrasies similar to human languages that are more rare in C++, Java or even Morse code. In particular the multiple synonymous codons.
"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender." Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)
To paraphrase Seth Shostak - if aliens make it to Earth they will be AI. It's the same if humans are to become interstellar. Meat bags don't travel well through parsecs of space. I'm also apprehensive of our future though. Good interview.
Not to argue, but if convergent evolution allows for the same traits to be arrived at by different gene sets, then how is it code? If there are potentially infinite ways to say the same thing, the analogy falls apart. Like code, but not code
(I can't tell you how much software I wrote on those long strips of punched paper, or how many times I swept the floors trying to get all those little dots...) ;)
The test tube experiments in replication do not demonstrate evolution in that they are set up in a thermodynamically ordered state and the reactions favoured by the Gibbs free energy formula. That is what happened was entirely predictable from a chemical bonding perspective which is why repeated tests did the same thing. the fact the length of RNA shortened shows how the increase in entropy compensated for the increase in number ie order.
So Jon, I'm guilty of the "it's not code, that an analogy" thing. Unlike creationists I want to learn and improve my knowledge, so that's one to take forward.
Another thing I do is respond to people who say that things have devolved, and I'll say that there's no such thing, it's still evolution as evolution doesn't have a goal. Now here in your stream Dawkins refers to the RNA which became efficient and smaller devolving. I was very confident of my position, but how can I be if Dawkins says that? Do I have it all wrong and devolving actually is a thing?
I didn't catch him use that word. You're fine to not like that word. I think it does cause more confusion than help.
Saying that information exists on DNA is accurate. Just as accurate as saying information exists on a random pile of sawdust. The valleys and peaks of within the dust pile can convey information. Formally, information is defined as any type of pattern that can influence the formation or transformation of other patterns. Well, the pattern on the pile of sawdust influence the firing pattern of neurons in my brain. So that's that. Emphasizing the existence of information on DNA just... completely misses the point, because that's not what's special about genetic information in the first place.
"Code" is still an analogy, and the "code" analogy still implies a coder. There is no escaping that. No matter what you do, people are still gonna make that connection. The problem is this analogy misses an incredible amount of nuance on how cells actually use the genetic information. For starters, no amount of programming can actually change the hardware that the software is running on. This contradicts the evidence for the evolution of replication, transcription and translation, which is still happening right now. There is more, but I can't bother to list them all though...
I would like to think one day humans can send some form of primitive genetic digital signals out into the space and can plant a seed of life in every habitable planets out there, and they can evolve according to their own planetary conditions over millennia.
If people would know how complex, for example, C/C++ compiler is they wouldn't claim that coding systems can be put together by some random mechanism like natural selection. If you seek truth you must study how computers work and how programmers map the semantic texts (programming languages) to 1s and 0s.
When I say "random mechanism" they say that natural selection is not random. So they can claim natural selection can make code system.
But the point they forget is natural selection can work only when there is a code system.
If there is nothing but evolution (“the survival of the fittest”) to account for our existence, then where, and how, did morality emerge from, when it is in direct contravention of “the survival of the fittest”?
Is it that once evolution had created a brain, then the brain took over and said thank very much, but now we are running how things will be done?
Isn’t it quite logical to say that compassion does not live by such rules as 'survival of the fitest' and is usually about survival of the unfittest?
I would like to offer Richard Dawkins the opportunity to answer this dilemma before he embarks on his down under tour in 2023.
Open the door Richard……
Thank you, for inviting me, Richard......
Bloody brilliant.
Not at all.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Dawkins love in...
From nature point of view dna and rna are 2 part of the same thing so dna is actually part of the mechanism involve in reading itself . dna is a code but it's also part of the machine that read the code, in the broad sense (as opposed to a book where the reader is the machine that read the book..
It was not only his general theory that was almost entirely lacking in any direct empirical support, but his special theory was also largely dependent on circumstantial evidence. A striking witness to this is the fact that nowhere was D arwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature, let alone having been responsible for the creation of a new species.
*A Theory in Crisis*
*Michael Denton*
Hi Ray. Darwin is 160 years ago. Scientists and researchers have now witnessed and observed natural selection producing speciation events. So NEW species have been observed, occurring both in nature and in the lab. So your Michael Denton is completely behind the times, about 100 years behind!
@@budd2nd Darwin is 160 years ago. Scientists and researchers have now witnessed and observed natural selecti on producing speciation events. So NEW species have been observed,
You must be referring to the Harvard bacteria experiment
its not possible to observe a process that assumingly took place millions of years
Is therefore the universe emerging by natural selection?
He just makes things up since he really does not care about science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
No, just dna. Religious people have one answer to a bunch of questions, it’s always “god” but these are two different questions; one is cosmology, the other is biology.
At 5:30, Mr. Dawkins too quickly dismisses the argument of the ID apologist from Chicago at 5:26 as being circular. It's actually not circular, it's an argument by induction; that all other examples of information encoding that we see are actions of intelligent entities (humans), therefore this new example of encoding (RNA) should also be the action of an intelligent entity. The apologists implies, but does not state, that this entity his preferred god concept. One error in this argument is an unwarranted assumption of a particular god entity whose existence has not been independently established. But that is only an error in the implied conclusion. More fundamentally, the apologist displays confirmation bias in not considering other examples of information encoding. For instance, footprints, scent residues, disturbed vegetation and blood spoor all encode information about a prey animal's path, which information can be decoded by a predator or scavenger seeking a protein meal; but there was no intelligent intent to encode that information for use by another entity. Additionally, the apologist makes a category error by assuming the information encoding in RNA is the same type that we humans use to communicate abstract information to our future selves, or to other humans separated in time and space. RNA is not required to have a an intelligent encoder, and evidently does not have any intelligent decoder by design. The decoding operation is a mindless one of protein synthesis or replication initiated at the proper time by the other life processes of the organism.
The argument for vitalism published in 1931 by Singer, and quoted at 6:57, is essentially an abandonment of the practice of science. It is the same decision made by Isaac Newton when he stopped investigating the behavior of the planets. Paraphrased, it states, "here I observe something that goes beyond my ability to explain with the information I have so far. My response is not to continue gathering evidence from demonstrable reality, but to ascribe it to a supernatural cause (God, life, psyche), which cannot be examined or tested." Thus the speaker has retired from the practice of science, and leaves it to others to continue investigating this aspect of the natural world. My criticism of Singer's passage may be a bit too harsh, but still, he is erroneously claiming that because he cannot make a gene function in the absence of the environment on which it normally operates, that it therefore is ultimately different from other natural systems and fundamentally mysterious. He has given up.
Footprints, scent residues, disturbed vegetation, blood spoors, tree rings, etc. aren’t examples of ENCODED information. They might CONVEY information because they are examples of indexical signs. An index is something that signifies something else due to an existential causal relation between it and the thing that it signifies. Eg. You know that smoke signifies fire because you are familiar with the natural causal relation between fire and smoke. If you didn’t know about that causal relation then smoke would not be a sign of fire to you. A symbolic sign, on the other hand, is something that signifies/represents something else due to an arbitrary convention or rule (eg. names, flags, words, traffic signals, etc). There is no existential, natural causal reason why a red light should represent “STOP” to you. You only know that ir means “STOP” because you know the convention/rule that says it means “STOP”. A code is a collection or system of symbols (eg. the particular sequence of dits (dit-dit-dit) is a symbol for the letter “S”, and the complete collection of dit & dah sequences together make up the Morse code. A footprint, a scent residue, disturbed vegetation, etc…these are all examples of single signs, not systems of signs, so they already are not codes. More pertinently, they are indexes, not symbols. Codes are systems of symbols, not of indexes.
@@basharun I can accept your definition of encoding. And by that definition, RNA is not encoded information, but indexes. This attacks more fundamentally the apologist's error of viewing RNA as encoded information, which makes the assumption of communication from a supernatural agency totally without foundation.
@@DanceSeek Whether or not DNA or RNA is (or contains) encoded information depends on whether or not the convention it's "written" in (ie. the Standard Genetic Code) is a real code. According to Crick's Sequence Hypothesis it is a real code (which is the universally accepted and only scientific explanation for protein synthesis). That means that if you want to say that it isn't a real code because it's indexical then the scientific onus is on you to either give an alternative explanation for protein synthesis that doesn't rely on the existence of a code, or you have to prove that it is indexical, which will require you to give a definitive explanation for the origin of the SGC. But, since OoL scientists currently don't have such an explanation, for you to emphatically assert that it IS indexical is a question begging fallacy.
@@basharun Interesting that when your definition of code is turned against the assumption of encoded information in RNA, you then move the goalposts, requiring a "real code" (whatever that means) and that for some reason an explanation for the origin of the genetic code is required. Its origin is irrelevant. The biochemical correspondence between nucleotide triplets and amino acids is well understood, it's not an arbitrary association of symbols. It's against the principle of parsimony to assume a receiving intelligence, a transmitting intelligence, or any message at all when such assumptions are not needed to explain the model.
@@DanceSeek There’s no moving of goalposts and you seem to be avoiding the point made to you. You’ve made an implied claim (that the SGC is indexical) and I’ve explained how and why your claim is question-begging and how and why it depends on the explanation for the origin of the code . Not addressing that explanation at all (but simply complaining about moving the goalpost) is fallacious reasoning, Also, the fact that there may be indexical, non-arbitrary connections between each link in a chain of components within a channel has no bearing on determining whether a code is involved or not. That’s actually one of the points made in this video. Most, if not ALL, codes operate in systems where there is indexical, non-arbitrary causal “correspondence” between every link in the chain. So your point about biochemical correspondence between nucleotide triplets and amino acids is irrelevant and doesn’t validate your claim at all. Again, if you want to claim that the SGC is indexical then the scientific onus is on you to prove that, and you can only do that by explaining the origin of the SGC. You haven’t addressed or disputed this, so your complaint about parsimony is an argument from incredulity.
The one true God, Dawkins
Hardly Dawkins would like that title.
@@desiderata8811 - “Guru” (teacher) would be better…
Genotype-phenotype transition in one humble molecule. Epiphany.,
The dna code - we know -- is not designed?? How does he know that? How did it evolve then?
Hi Kristen. Scientists say that DNA was not designed because of its flaws and mistakes.
These flaws show evidence of a gradual accumulation of functions, badly organised together. No “designer” would do that.
As to how DNA evolved, it is thought to be itself evolved, from the far simpler RNA.
5:34 like homology?
Perfection needs imperfection to justify it’s existence, therein lies the answer to everything……
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence. ...
_"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes."_ (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
_"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_ (Wikipedia: Digital Data)
*”The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.”* ( “Genetic Code - National Human Genome Research Institute” Genome . gov)
*_”Genetic code is the term we use for the way that the four bases of DNA--the A, C, G, and Ts--are strung together in a way that the cellular machinery, the ribosome, can read them and turn them into a protein. In the genetic code, each three nucleotides in a row count as a triplet and code for a single amino acid. So each sequence of three codes for an amino acid. And proteins are made up of sometimes hundreds of amino acids. So the code that would make one protein could have hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of triplets contained in it.”_* (Lawrence C. Brody, Ph.D., Genome dot gov)
Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of ALL Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is NO biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
I love to see this union of science and animation.
I would also love to see his science books made into an animated documentary series, with each episode as educational as it is entertaining.
Even the Professor’s life story could be made into a movie - “The Durrells in Corfu”, why not “The Dawkins in Africa” ?
Stephen Hawking had two features made about his life, isn’t it about time Richard Dawkins’s entertaining biography was made into a film as well ?. Perhaps a combination of live action and animation.
I wonder who should play the lead role ?
I'd love to see a union of science and Dawkins but he doesn't care much about science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Information Theory: Order (i.e. crystal structure) and Information (DNA/RNA) are Not the same thing.
Dawkins: “Well it’s a classic circular argument. Your friend…said “All the codes we know come from design”. Well, it’s not true. We know the DNA code, it doesn’t come from design, and he’s simply going round in a circle there. It really does deal the killing blow to vitalism.”
This is a strange response from Dawkins because there is an obvious logical problem with it:
It seems to me what Dawkins is implying here is that “We know” definitively that the genetic code was NOT caused by intelligent or directed agency because “We know” that it was caused by undirected, natural processes. But in order to know definitively that it was caused by an undirected, natural process we obviously need to know what that process actually is. That is, we need to have a definitive explanation for the origin of the genetic code. Yet It’s not an uncontroversial fact that OoL scientists investigating the origin of the genetic code don’t have any definitive answers to this problem. One of the leading researchers in this field, Eugene Koonin, for example, wrote: “Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.” (Eugene V. Koonin and Artem S. Novozhilov, Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma. 2009).
And in his 2017 review article on the status of this problem Koonin asks in the introduction: ““Why are the codon assignments what they are? In other words, why is it the case that, for instance, glycine is encoded by GGN codons rather than, say, CCN codons (the latter of which encode proline in the SGC)?” “Evolution of the code is intimately linked to the origin and evolution of the translation apparatus itself, and this is one of the most fundamental and hardest problems in all of biology.”
And in the conclusion of this same review article he writes: “Notwithstanding the complete transformation of biology that occurred over these decades, we do not seem to be much closer to the solution. Recalling the list of “why” questions we asked in the introduction, we find that it is hardly possible to answer any of them definitively.” (Eugene V. Koonin and Artem S. Novozhilov, “Origin and Evolution of the Universal Genetic Code”, Annual Review Of Genetics, Vol. 51:45-62.
So, if OoL scientists investigating the very question about how the genetic code came about don’t have any definitive answers, and if they acknowledge that “it is hardly possible” to answer this question definitively, then Dawkins is actually making a classic circular argument himself.
You're right of course, this is just waffle.
It would have been better to say that, since we don’t know the origin of DNA, it is at best a weak argument from induction to say that it must be intelligently designed because we know that some other codes were designed. At worst it’s a fallacious argument from analogy.
@@Detson404 1. The argument is about the origin of the genetic code, not about the origin of DNA. By analogy: If you were to argue that the Rosetta Stone is the result of intelligent agency then your argument would be about the origin of the apparent code (ie. the symbolic markings) found on the stone, not about the origin of the stone itself. Eg. You might be able to provide a definitive explanation for the stone via purely natural, non-intelligent processes (eg. soil erosion), but does soil erosion explain how the symbolic markings got there? No.
2. I don’t think anybody is arguing that “SOME other codes were designed, therefore the genetic code was designed”. The argument is actually that “ALL codes are intelligently designed, and the genetic code is a code, therefore the genetic code was intelligently designed”. Using the same analogy again: Nobody reasons that SOME symbolic markings/writing are intelligently designed, therefore the Rosetta Stone markings are intelligently designed. What we actually say is that ALL symbolic markings/writing are intelligently designed, and there are symbolic markings/writing on the Rosetta Stone, therefore those markings were intelligently designed.
3. The argument explained above is a deductive argument. (That is, P1: ALL codes are intelligently designed. P2: X is a code. Conclusion: Therefore, X was intelligently designed). It clearly isn’t an inductive argument, so your suggestion that it’s a “weak argument from induction” doesn’t make sense.
4. You need to actually demonstrate how and why the argument “P1: ALL codes are intelligently designed. P2: X is a code. Conclusion: Therefore, X was intelligently designed” is a “fallacious argument from analogy”. You can’t just say that it is because then you’re making a bare assertion fallacy. Also, you’ll need to then explain why we don’t also regard the Rosetta Stone argument (ie. “P1: ALL symbolic markings/writing are intelligently designed. P2: The Rosetta Stone has symbolic markings/writing on it. Conclusion: Therefore, the Rosetta Stone markings were intelligently designed”) as an argument from analogy fallacy, but instead we regard it as perfectly valid reasoning. What’s the difference?
@@basharun 1. I see your point. I'm pretty much a materialist, though, so I'm not 100% sure that information is a "thing" outside its instantiation in something material. I'm more comfortable asking "how did this matter come to be in this arrangement." For the Rosetta stone, it's because somebody carved those symbols into it. For DNA, well.... 2. I acknowledge that what you said is a valid deductive argument. The problem is that science is not deductive, it is inductive. "All swans are white, this bird is a swan, therefore it is white," works perfectly well until you find a black swan. "All codes are produced by an intelligence, this is a code, therefore it was produced by an intelligence" is just the black swan fallacy. You could say "the next swan we find is probably going to be white, because we've only observed white swans," and that would be fine. You've also defined the idea of a natural code out of existence. You can do that...until we find one, and in the meantime you're needlessly excluding possibilities. "All light sources are chemical reactions, the sun is a light source, therefore the sun is a chemical reaction" is excluding the possibility that some light sources aren't chemical...people used to think the sun had only a few thousand years of life left until we found out that fusion was a thing. 3. Ditto. 4. Ditto. If we found the Rosetta stone today, we could say "we've only observed carved tablets with symbols resembling the Greek alphabet to come from humans, therefore it's reasonable to assume that this is a passage in Greek carved by a human."
@@Detson404 ///“I see your point. I'm pretty much a materialist, though, so I'm not 100% sure that information is a "thing" outside its instantiation in something material. I'm more comfortable asking "how did this matter come to be in this arrangement." For the Rosetta stone, it's because somebody carved those symbols into it. For DNA, well….”///
1. What you’re saying is that you have a personal materialist worldview. Sure, that’s your prerogative. But suppose someone makes an argument like: “P1: All codes are made by intelligent agency. P2: X is a code. Conclusion: Therefore, X was made by intelligent agency”. If you then respond to that by saying “Well…I can’t accept that because it goes against my personal materialist philosophy, so I just can’t see how it could be possible”, then you are making an argument from personal incredulity fallacy and you’re not addressing the merits of that persons argument.
2. For the Rosetta Stone the fact that the markings were carved is not what’s pertinent. What’s pertinent is the fact that the markings, and the sequences of markings are symbolic. That is, If we find evidence symbols anywhere then THAT is what points to intelligent agency.
///“The problem is that science is not deductive, it is inductive.”///
Science uses inductive AND deductive reasoning, as well as abductive reasoning. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate hypothesis and theories, and deductive reasoning when applying them to specific situations. They also use abductive reasoning when trying to select the hypothesis that would best fit or explain observations. This reasoning is actually encapsulated in a general principle that Darwin subscribed to, ie. When determining the best explanation use the one that is based on causes “now known to be in operation”. Eg. We currently don’t have a natural mechanism as a candidate to explain the existence of symbolic text on the Rosetta Stone, but we do have a known cause for symbolic text…intelligent agency. So, since intelligent agency is a cause “now known to be in operation”, and there are currently no other explanations, it is the best explanation. This is perfectly valid as scientific reasoning.
///“All swans are white, this bird is a swan, therefore it is white," works perfectly well until you find a black swan. "All codes are produced by an intelligence, this is a code, therefore it was produced by an intelligence" is just the black swan fallacy.”///
1. This goes to burden of proof. If it was empirically determined that all swans we’ve ever encountered are white, and we then discover the bones of a dead swan, then we can make a valid scientific inference that the dead swan was white. This sort of thing is done all the time in science. So if you then want to appose it and make a SCIENTIFIC argument that the dead swan was black, then you can’t present as evidence just your logic that it’s possible we could one day discover a black swan. In other words, the burden of proof doesn’t fall on us to prove that the swan was white. It falls on YOU to prove scientifically that it wasn’t white. Similarly, if all codes we’ve ever encountered are products of intelligent agency, and if we determine that the genetic code is a code, then we can make a valid scientific inference that it was made by/with intelligently agency and the burden falls on you to prove that it didn’t (either by proving that not all codes are made with intelligent agency, or by proving that the genetic code isn’t a code).
2. You could regard what I explained in (1) above as a scientific type argument: “All codes we’ve ever empirically observed were intelligently designed, therefore it is valid to infer that any new code will be intelligently designed”. However, I think another argument can be made based on logic and that is a more serious problem for you: That is: All codes are made by/with intelligent agency, not just because this is a valid scientific inference based on all previous empirical evidence, but more seriously because it is a logical necessity. For example, consider the proposition “All bachelors are unmarried”. We could say this is a valid scientific inference based on all bachelors we’ve ever encountered, so it’s a scientific type argument. But more importantly, it must be true as a matter of logical necessity. That’s because it’s an analytic proposition: bachelors, by definition, are unmarried. It isn’t logically possible to have a married bachelor. So, we don’t even need to go out and look for scientific evidence. We know that “All bachelors are unmarried” MUST be true, and it isn’t logically possible for scientific evidence to overrule or refute this. “All swans are white”, in contrast, is not an analytic proposition. It is synthetic, ie. A swan is not white by definition, so the colour of a swan is a matter for empirical evidence to decide. However, the proposition “All symbols are made by/with intelligence” is an analytic proposition. And the proposition “All codes are systems of symbols” is also an analytic proposition. So you then have P1: All symbols are made with intelligent agency. P2: All codes are systems of symbols. Conclusion: All codes are made with intelligent agency”. For a more detailed elaboration of this, see my answer here: www.quora.com/Does-the-fact-that-DNA-is-a-code-prove-that-it-was-developed-by-an-intelligent-being/answer/Rasheed-Larney?fbclid=IwAR0bhsT-EUXftfsrOgoFL1rwud9RilwqzuV9HVEwzEqRLYbkHGeGBza9hFo
///“If we found the Rosetta stone today, we could say "we've only observed carved tablets with symbols resembling the Greek alphabet to come from humans, therefore it's reasonable to assume that this is a passage in Greek carved by a human.””///
1. We could use countless other analogies where “carving” isn’t relevant, so don’t focus on the wrong thing.
2. We could reasonably imagine beings other than humans could also make those symbolic markings, eg. well trained apes, or perhaps alien beings from another planet, etc. So, to be precise, we should identify the particular feature of humans (that is not logically and necessarily unique to humans) that enable them to make those markings. Clearly it isn’t our peculiar shape, or size, or colour that gives us that ability. As a matter of logical necessity, the feature responsible for the ability to make symbols is intelligence. That’s also the common feature we can conceive of in other beings like apes or aliens. So the correct, precise thing we can say about the Rosetta Stone markings is that they were made with intelligent agency. That is, we can and do recognise that for ANY being or agent (whether we know that being exists or not) to be able to make those markings, that being must have intelligence. Whether it’s HUMAN or not is irrelevant. So humans are known to make patterns like this by human intelligent agency. But it isn’t a logical necessity that it can only be humans. If we did not already know that humans existed and made those markings, then, while we would not be able to know what specific agent caused them, we still would be able to validly conclude that whoever or whatever that agent is, it must, as matter of logical necessity, have intelligence.
Have you interviewed Michael Behe
I think a lot of cool people are from Oregon. (Me included)
The party’s over, it’s time to call it a day
They’ve burst your pretty balloon, they’ve taken the moon away
Take off your makeup, your masquerade, it’s time to breakup
The piper must be paid
the only thing about DNA that required mind was understanding that DNA has no mind behind it's creation
God created DNA.
@@2fast2blockdna does not require intelligence
@@2fast2blockcitation needed
@@walterhartwellwhite8022 then how did it come about on its own? Share the laughter.
@@Detson404 well, let's see, nature can't create nature but to you, nature created time, space, and matter. I'm not aware of such evidence, do give it. At least try. The world needs laughter.
Though I'm not a believer in gods, winged angels, and demons, I still can't get past the fact that a maple seed will only (and always) grow a maple tree. The information of and for life is so rigid that it's hard to buy into life as a system created by purely random chance. If life were purely random then a seed would sprout a tree where one branch would grow leaves while another branch spawned caterpillars. Another branch would spew orange juice, while yet another would grow bird feathers. The information within seeds, eggs, and sperm is so fixed that it is very much like a computer program; hence, a designer.
No one in biology claims it is random. What alleles change IS random, but which ones continue on in the population is not.
A maple seed doesn't always and only grow a maple tree; it always and only grows a near, yet not perfect, copy of its ancestor. "Maple Tree" is just a human label for those groups that are similar to the ancestor and the seed.
@@devb9912 you misfits can't get past creation so you should shut up with what came afterward. You're such jokes.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block *"Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing.""*
Dawkins is a biologist, not a cosmologist. He doesn't teach anything about the universe. Grow up.
Plants do experience random mutations, which can be selectively bred to create new plants. Cabbage, cauliflower, Brussel sprouts, kale and more are all descendants of the same wild plant. And yet, a child cabbage will look just like it’s parent, a distinct cabbage plant. No caterpillar cabbage yet.
People who think this was a good conversation did not actually pay any attention to RD's facial expressions and his voice tones. Either that or, after knowing his ethical views, i despise him too much to be able to blissfully ignore that he has an obsessive compulsion to sound superior to JP and every single scientist/inventor quoted in this conversation.
Is it true that Darwin maintained Christian Faith?
Is is true that Carl Sagan began to doubt other life in the universe at the end of his life?
Yes, Darwin trained to be a priest and was a Christian. He believed in god for much of his life, although he did start to have some doubts about his faith. That is well known and doesn't really have any bearing on his scientific work. As for Sagan, I'm not sure.
No Carl Sagan always kept believing about life in the universe. It doesn't mean intelligent but because of chemistry which is the same all across the universe, that was an unshakable scientific fact that he knew life had billions of chances of being born in the rest of the universe. Ann Druyan continued his work, you can double check.
@@CG_Hali Richard was clueless from the start, creation, and just continued with what followed.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@eoghainokeeffe3274 Darwin lost his faith in Christianity quite early on, probably two decades or so before Origin was published, about the same time as his ideas of evolution germinated. In later life he described himself as agnostic. In any case he didn't believe in a personal god that has our interests in mind, as he makes clear in his letter about a species of wasp laying their eggs in live caterpillars.
Darwin was deist or agnostic after her daughter death.
Carl Sagan... I don't know, he was agnostic and didn't believe in afterlife and supernatural but I don't know about aliens.
Do any of you really believe DNA could have been created by some random means? He said it's "very easy" to do. So why hasn't someone managed to do it in the half century or so they have been trying to do this very thing. Many attempts have been made under sterile laboratory conditions. They know the proper sequence of the amino acids needed to make a particular strand. The lowest number of sequenced amino acids in one of the strands needed for life has 150 characters. The most anyone has managed to get to bond together in a lab is 9, that's right, "nine." Then the string just falls apart. And they don't know why. They know the types of amino acids needed, and how they are sequenced...................but nobody has ever managed to make one even though they had all the parts, and knew where to put each one. But nobody, including Dawkins, has never even come close to succeeding. And yet he will still sit there and tell people it's "EASY." Not to mention the innermost workings of the simplest cell. I think you guys need a new messiah.............because this guy is lying to your face.........and he knows it.
Yes, you are right, you don't deserve a place on earth, I "pray", "heaven" takes you as soon as possible.
@@SamsonFernendezGood job at not addressing any of his points
Richard Dawkins calls the DNA's quaternary code a 'little bit' more complicated than the computer's binary code. A little bit? The DNA is much more complicated. It can be read backwards along with forward. It can work by offsetting a few frames [codons] and go forward or backward once again and make a different needed protein. The theory of evolution's proponents use this simplifying. It's misdirection by simplifying.
He tries to simplify the self-arranging of the complexity of the DNA sequences as being 'saved' by natural selection. Natural selection must select something intelligent...an intelligence in which are mathematical impossibilities-by-chance. Natural selection does not save self-assembling biological codes. They do still have an intelligent design signature to them.
These two talk like there is just one code involved in living cells. Not true. There are FIVE codes. There is the DNA code, the mtDNA code, the epigenome code, the lipid code of cell membranes, and the 'sugar code' that are on the surfaces of the cells. This more than a catch 22. It's a 'catch 55' needing to come together all at the same time for life to succeed. Again...natural selection can't save the theory of evolution with all of this complexity. What does natural selection select? It selects the epigenome's gene modifications without evolution's DNA mutation-engine. This again fits the intelligent design signature.
The proteins are not simple either. They have to fold perfectly to make a needed product for life in the cell within a split second...or up to four seconds depending on the complexity. Manmade supercomputers TIED together takes WEEKS to duplicate the feat! This probably should be called the sixth code.
I mentioned the epigenome code above. It is from this already built-in biological code that adaptations and trait passing comes from...passing for HUNDREDS of generations without DNA mutations being involved. Not credited to do so by evolutionary scientists until 2014. The epigenome works like a software program running overtop the DNA hardware program. See this catch 22 working along with the other three codes? Here is a cut and paste...and a link describing the epigenome.
www.dictionary.com › browse › epigenomeEpigenome Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Epigenome definition, a network of chemical compounds surrounding DNA that modify the genome without altering the DNA sequences and have a role in determining which genes are
The epigenome's multi-generational adaptation and trait passing capability does not involve evolving of DNA sequences but is a biological system with standing-already-there capability. It takes cues from the environment such as new diets, new environments, and new threats and modifies into new things like the beak of the Darwin Finch or bacteria coming onto new antibiotic resistance. This new information is passed on in the female's eggs AND the male's seminal fluid that the sperm swims in. This newly 2014-credited epigenome's ability was miscalled as being 'evidence' for the ASSUMED EVOLVING OF DNA MUTATIONS miscalled 'microevolution'. All of the macroevolution schemes were built on these two miscalled precepts. The 'engine' for evolution is therefore missing 'under the hood'. Wrong precepts makes the evolution's concept impossible. Evolution's proposed way of evolving does not make it to first base. This makes macroevolution's home runs just a mind construct. You must run to first base to proceed to touch all the bases in your homerun trot.
How does the epigenome software code work in conjunction with the DNA code? Let's do an analogy of a new built car. A new car has the same 'hardware' as a pre-1970 car of the engine, the pistons, and the drive shaft. Let's call that the 'DNA' of the two cars. In a high-end new car there are up to a hundred computers and a 150 computer chips. This we will call the 'epigenome' of the new high-end car. These feed information into the engine for precision of its workings. This is like how the epigenome-DNA relationship works in life.
There you go! I give you science showing we are a creation. Your evolution scientists and academic mentors give you scientism. The Creator? Jesus Christ. Here is a 4 minute video describing the TRUE gospel...
ruclips.net/video/Wh1VU-_OF98/видео.html
Non of your comment acts as POSITIVE evidence FOR us or a gnome being “created”. Not unless you are saying that nature created it. Are you saying that?
Sorry I started typing before finished reading your comment. You are obviously claiming that a God (you call it Jesus Christ) created us. Then you need to provide positive evidence for your claim. Poking holes in existing science won’t get you there.
That's a lovely strawman
Discount science, imply magic is the cause. Real logical
@@drsatan9617 you are not logical or else you would have shown how DNA just came about on its own. But anyone that thinks that, does not think much. Oh, that's YOU!
Keep screaming into the void, creationists. You all must be old and retired to have time to write these crazy screeds in the comments.
Our living systems are all a combination of digital and analogy attributes. In terms of intelligence the digital part is more important because it is a deciding between specific choices. If, at the lowest levels, we could not specifically make a choice then intelligence would not work. However, it sounds like Dawkins is saying there is no analog elements to how DNA works as an intelligent system and this is not true. There is a lot of analog elements involved which are critical, understanding the quantum scales DNA functions in should make that clear, it is just what is important to us is the very strong discrete decision making capability of DNA.
Dawkins is also very incorrect about saying that DNA does not come from design. Dawkins is stuck in the religious like dogmatic belief of Neo-Darwinism which has been repeatedly proven incorrect within science for decades, but the dogmatic incorrect belief of Neo-Darwinism has continued to dominate and suppress the real scientific truth in this.
There is a two way flow of information between the genome and the whole of the living intelligent system using that genome. We have scientifically proven this over and over. We have incredible leading edge science and technology using this truth, yet despite that the dogmatic belief in a proven incorrect one way flow of information from the genome up continues to dominate mainstream science.
Living organisms from viruses up intelligently design their own evolutionary development in a similar manner to how a language is intelligently designed across many generations of humans by the humans using that language and their intelligent decision making as it effects that languages development.
Yet another major mistake Dawkins makes, in my opinion, is this being STUCK on the selfish gene, because while it is not unreasonable to describe ONE PIECE of the complex intelligent behavior of life with this idea of the selfish gene, so to is the unselfish gene. This is the same extreme error as trying to state all motivations for people are based upon a single driver like "selfishness" or that all morality should be based off a single maxim like "maximizing happiness and well-being for all people".
Both are wrong, because they are not complex enough to reflect the reality we live in.
A great example of where this selfish gene idea gets shattered is the amazing research being done on the intelligent behavior of individual cells within a multicellular organism and learning the language of the cells, so that we do not have to know everything about how the insides of a cell work in order to get the cell to work for us. Instead, all we need to do is learn the correct messages to give a cell and that cell can then do all kinds of things for us.
One of the elements of this research, being done at Tufts University by Michael Levin and his team is the selfless gene that operates within cells so long as the communication signals are working so that the cells understand they are part of the larger organism, for which those cells will sacrifice themselves to support the larger whole group. This selfless intelligent behavior is seen on virtually all scales of cellular life.
But, if you break down the communication between some cells and the whole body, those cells then stop thinking they are part of the whole body, instead view that body as external, and turn cancerous.
So, yes, there is a proverbial "Selfish Gene" but so to there is a proverbial "Selfless Gene".
‘*’
Natural selection selects not produces something 10:54
In conversation with people who understand evolution, Dawkins often uses "natural selection" as shorthand for the combined process of "descent with modification acted upon by natural selection". It is this joint process that does produce things.
I agree with you, though, that just saying "natural selection" could confuse students who are new to the concept of evolution by natural selection.
@@StatedCasually Dawkins uses lies.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Dawkins DNA _"is a code it's definitely a code and it is a code that's put together not by a designer but by natural selection. Its easy to see how that can happen in principle, details of course have to be worked out"_
Perry quoting a creationist _"DNA is code all codes we know were designed therefore the genetic code was designed"_
Dawkins answer _"well that's classic circular argument he said all codes we know come from a design, well its not true the DNA code is not from design"_
If the DETAILS are yet to be WORKED OUT then what we KNOW is we *DON'T KNOW* that DNA code was not designed and certainly cannot claim DNA evolved naturally from physical processes as the *TRUTH!*
All you’d have to do to prove him wrong is find some evidence of a god. It should be easy, if god does things there should be evidence. He’s omnipotent, he could show up to every single person on earth right now and it would literally be effortless.
@@Detson404 It is and He has but you're not looking for God and worse still expect one you that you invented!
Proof of God is literally everywhere you look.. its all around you! Try this: Find ONE WORD that describes everything you see!
@@mikebellamy "literally everywhere you look"...... Just saw a kid die from bone cancer.
@@Jewonastick Avoiding the question by jumping into your own morality which has no basis without God to prove God doesn't exist is circular vacuous nonsense! Just try to ANSWER the question.
@@mikebellamy Why? Why should I try to come up with one word for everything I see? Bit of a silly question....
'It's a code, it looks like a code , it feels like a code, if a computer scientist was asked what was a code he would say it was a code... but its natural. Its like methane. Jesus.
Seems to be the case. Plenty of unintuitive things are nevertheless true.
I dont think Darwin looks sad in that picture, he looks great like an old chimpanzee, Dawkins was projecting. Also Dawkins should not dismiss ideas such as those now posited by many physicists regarding simulation hypothesis, as bollocks, heroes of his such as Sagan spoke of the possibility.
Yes, we are primates after all! The simulation stuff is just unfalsifiable navel gazing. Even if true it could never be proven. It’s the kind of thing you think about once while high and never bother with again.
Yes pure atheism
Yes, pure clueless.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block you will never find or be able to detect any proof of the supernatural by any mechanical/ electronic methods
He can be known only by undivided love . And When you love a person you do devotional services .
@@food4lifecycle4life 1. Host is not atheist
2. Supernatural can be observed and detected- psychic powers, pararrel realms, miracles- all those things can be observed
@@2fast2blockNobody says universe came from nothing except theists. Where did god come from? What did he make the universe from? Was it… nothing? 😂
Final killing blow to the possibility of a life worth living.
Why would you say that?
Nothing has changed. Whatever we are, it’s what we’ve always been for our whole existence as a species. Knowing more doesn’t retroactively make anything less or more true.
In the case of computer code, there are basically 1s and 0s, but write this code as much as you want, unless there is a mind to make sense of it, this code makes no sense. Only a programmer/hardware designer can give meaning to those ones and zeros. Now I ask: Who gave this meaning to the codes that make up the human genome? Let's say this code is generated by chance or random mutations. So, who gave the meaning that emerged as a result of this formation to those codes? Think about it this way, I thought of a computer code in my head, what is the meaning of these codes if there is no structure that will make sense of this code, that is, the hardware structure of the computer processor? So I need to design that structure that gives meaning to code which is in my head right?
Finally, imagine that I am throwing off the keywords of any programming language out of my head. So what's the point of these codes if you don't have the hardware to run it?
The point is not that the codes cannot occur randomly, the issue is why these codes are put together in a certain way, then a certain meaning is attached and as a result, they do a job. Just as a language designer attributes meaning to certain keywords when they come together in a certain order, this DNA code must have been given meaning by a superior mind. And you can not answer this by scientific ways. You can only say "well, nature gave this meaning" and this answer is no different from my "God gave it that meaning" answer. So you can't accuse me of being unscientific. At most, you would have given a philosophical answer. As you can see, you can't answer everything with science.
I advise you to research how computers and programming languages work. So you will understand very well what I mean.
You asked “So Who gave this meaning to the codes that make up the genome?”
I think you’re getting bogged down with the idea, that up until now WE have been the only ones that we knew of using codes. But nature got there long before us. Natures own requirements for survival, produced a code as an emergent property. That simple code (simple to begin with at least) and the need to COPY itself. Is why DNA code evolved.
Unless a separate “programmer, creator” is discovered your position on this, is unfounded.
Conjecture at best but certainly not a persuasive argument.
@@budd2nd It doesn't matter that only we use code or not. Question of the origin of the code still applies.
Those ones and zeros mean nothing unless a computer scientist assigns the corresponding meaning to zeros and ones. Well, if these certain DNA nucleotide sequences come together in a certain order and amount, it develops a function with a purpose, then this meaning was assigned to it by a programmer. You say that the meanings of these codes are assigned by nature, I say that the meanings of these codes are assigned by a superior mind beyond nature.
@@electricity2703
I don’t think there is “meaning”, not in the sense that you are using the word.
A better word would be “results”. The results give a survival advantage. If an organism doesn’t survive then it isn’t likely to reproduce and to multiply. Is it?
So it is the results that nature favours.
I personally think that meaning is an emergent property of a thinking mind. Nature doesn’t have a thinking mind. Not physics, chemistry or biology. That is very evident.
So using the word “meaning” is not helpful here.
@@budd2nd So you think there is no meaning in reality? Am I right? Is it just a biological illusion?
@@electricity2703
I personally think that meaning is a human construct. It is a way of mentally framing OUR goals and desires. And a way of discussing them.
For someone so preoccupied with reproductive success, I wonder if Richard Dawkins was ever a sperm donor ?
He has the best of genes: for intelligence, altruism, health and attractiveness. He was impossibly handsome (see his inspiring Christmas lectures back in 1991), and as octogenarian, is still going strong today - even after his stroke back in 2016.
It’s a relief to see his mind is still as sharp as ever.
If our Professor is fortunate enough to have inherited his parents’ genes for longevity he’ll be with us for many years to come - thank goodness.
Well, my genes we´re written by some weed-smoking coder and not by a real programmer, that´s why I´m not Richard Dawkins😄
dawkins makes a classic mistake, where he wants to believe so much he is right that he misinterprets the facts of reality to suit him, exactly the same as the guy he tried to debunk. its true that most code we know of is made by us, but as far as where dna comes from and who created it, we must neither say it was made by noone(nature/who made nature?) or that it was made by god, we must simply say: i dont know, i dont have the fucking slightest clue if any intelligence made dna or it was simply something that happens naturally in this universe, similar to rock formations and oceans. similarly one might wonder, is it possible that some intelligence made this reality/universe? is it something that could make itself? again you might think about it for a million years, but at the current time, we have not enough data to even begin to answer these types of questions, we simply need more technologies that will eventually hopefully be able to produce relevant data, and when we have relevant data the answer will be obvious
We don't know how DNA originated, but we do know how it diversified to produce the life on this planet now, because that is what the theory of evolution by natural selection is all about.
@@roqsteady5290 but isnt this the main question in here
where DNA came from ?
@@rukiichi85We don’t know. If you want to claim something did it, you need to do more than poke holes in science, you need empirical evidence of that thing.
Mr Dawkins I have heard most of your video clips with Ernest interest and read all the books you have published . Sorry but you have not been able to convince me an iota .
I am absolutely convinced that I will not be able to make any sense to you but i will give it a go .
Conciousnes is not the product of the brain . You have no evidence whatsoever. On the other hand the brain functions because of the presence of consciousness which is the symptom of the soul . At death the soul leaves the body .
This experience of divinity is a personal endeavor and thus remains personal. These practices would not have survived for thousands of yrs .
You cannot see the subtle body which is mind /intelligence and the ego ( your identification ) yet you know it exists . The soul which is even more subtle is the only non physical component in the body . Science cannot capture this only personal endeavor can …
You read all of his books and you thought that was what he was trying to convince you of?
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 the mind maybe the property of the brain . But not consciousness . Not in a million yrs . Consciousness is the symptom of the soul . Non physical
@@food4lifecycle4life No evidence of souls, divinity, nor consciousness not being a product of the brain. Look into neuroscience for the proof we have of the mind being an emergent property of brains. Personal endeavor does not count.
Go prove your bald assertions; start with souls existing and take it from there.
It would be hard to read all of Dawkins’s books and come out the other end imagining that your personal experiences trump science.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 hold on i am confused do you mean there is no soul?
the Sqwaukins of Dawkins assumes what it tries to prove - we know that evolution is true, so DNA evolved, the information in DNA came about by random undirected means - just like Shakespeare wrote plays by randomly picked letters out of a bag, and just like software programmers code by random typing on a keyboard.
Your analogy is flawed: Shakespeare didn't write millions of versions of Hamlet. I could pick at it further, but it seems you don't know what evolution is and how different the process is from creating a book, so that'd most likely be a pointless exercise.
The entire existence of ī is for __
*_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)