Its not at all shocking how many troll accounts are being shut down on science videos . Every video on this subject attracts tons of " Truth Seekers " and " Justa Theory " types but I have noticed that many are no longer in use . Proof that they were designwd for only trolling .
I just wanted to say that Paul Mitchell, the young man who introduced the program, is an inspiration himself. His presentation/introduction, was eye-catching and well-prepared. I saw a young man with a handle on eloquent, well spoken speech that introduced the program with sophistication and evidence that education is not lost.
+Joseph Nordenbrock THE FOOD CHAIN IS PREDATORY IN NATURE. SINCE CHARLES DARWIN STATES EVERYTHING EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ORIGIN WOULD ONLY MEANS LIFE WOULD HAVE EATEN ITSELF INTO EXTINCTIONS FROM THE START. THIS ALONE KILLS EVOLUTION IN IT'S TRACK. IF I LABEL EVOLUTION AS GARBAGE I'M BEING VERY KIND. IT MORE LIKE PILES OF BULLSHIT WITH FLIES ALL OVER IT.
+Joseph Nordenbrock What's with Frank289100 and the all caps? Hey Frank, you bring up a point but isn't it possible reproduction outpaced consumption? You only have to stay ahead by a few and after 100,000 years that becomes a very large lead.
What a marvellously intelligent man, tells how it is in no uncertain terms. All Richards videos add to my education. Thank you so much RUclips, a true shining star in a confused world. Cheers SBM.
He's a joke like you are. 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/
@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 He's a doofus lie you are. 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/
This is a breath of fresh air. Just yesterday a hard core Christian tried threatening me by saying demons were real and the devil was going to get me. I’m an atheist , and this video really helps to counteract the total nonsense I had to listen to yesterday.
only insecure men threaten. God has no such insecurity. Check the video "The Ghosts of Evolution - The Terrors of Natural History" the fear of demons and ghosts is evolutionary baggage from primates under threat from snakes, large cats and other predators in the night. Superstition takes advantage of this human evolutionary baggage.
@@prometheusunchained4236 thank you so much for the suggestion- I’ll definitely check it out! It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that a fear of predators in the dark helped our ancestors survive.
“Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing.” ― Thomas Henry Huxley
@@MrDorbel er...that would seem to me, Señor, to be going somewhat against his quote supplied by Microneus above. No? Or was Señor Huxley admitting to, in his dismissal of that manifestation of something supernatural, what might be termed something by way of "A conflict of loyalties". What say you?
@@PLASKETT7 No. If for example God makes a personal appearance simultaneously to every person on the planet tomorrow and says, "Get down on your knees and worship or go to hell", I wouldn't be interested in that either. Ditto Huxley.
What a great talk. It's nice to see him delivering a talk to people at a higher level. I've learned a lot from watching this. I've previously seen him in the trenches battling creationist loons. Wonderful to hear and learn such interesting thoughts and facts on evolution at a higher level, really shows what a good public educator Richard Dawkins really is.
He's a dolt like you are. 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/
@@jarrygarry5316 Exactly.Dawkins is only famous for being an outspoken atheist that's all.He hasn't come up with anything new or revolutionary that will benefit mankind.He is just a big noise.
I can't help but admire Dawkins patience to answer the same questions over and over again, it must be exhausting to be as famous an atheist as he is and be asked "what do you believe if you don't believe in god?" At least once after every (unrelated) lecture.
You thank this F00L. 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/
How come we readily accept what (DIFERENT) scientists tell us about this or that space feature, as if they are infallible while never asking ourselves that is it not logical to believe that because what they say goes almost totally unquestioned (it must) effect their honesty, as it would in any other area of understanding? “POWER CORUPTS, AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRIPTS ABSOLULUTELY”: LORD ACTON. And even if what they say is challenged, is there not a kind of old boys’ club, that is careful not to allow too many openings of enquiry, in case the enquirers leave themselves vulnerable? Scientists are just people, with all the failings that all people are prone to? : “All is vanity saithe the Preacher”: Ecclesiastics…
RD and you are 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. 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/
Right around one hour and 20 minutes the audience asked him if he thinks, because of advances in medicine and what not, that there’s any more evolution involved in the human species. I think Dawkins misunderstood the questions and answered as if the gentleman had asked about artificial or a human guided or eugenic evolution. And the last question was are there certain humans that are more predisposed to rational or irrational thoughts than others, genetically, and he also misunderstood that one. I would’ve loved to have heard his answers to both.
Dawkins is a dolt. 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/
And you just eat up his nonsense. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
I don't agree with some of his more metaphysical and philosophical claims. But he is scientifically smart, it seems, I'll grant that. It's interesting. I can tell he is strong about his ideas because of some of the more anti science circles out there. This guy actually increased some of my mysterious wonder just now.
Dr. Dawkins is simply.......brilliant! When he eventually passes, the world will lose a leading scientist and thinker. We need more people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking, DeGrasse Tyson, Krauss, Sam Harris, and others of their caliber and intelligence.
Dr10Jeeps ...most of them hopelessly ignorant to the fact that aliens have been influencing this fact since the year dot.....don/t think so? See ‘to the stars academy’ the re-education programme has started.
Dawkins is a Natural Born Idiot. He is Recycling old fashioned pseudoarguments from the past. His intellectual Niveau is extremelx low. You must be utterly naive to take such a guy seriously.
Dear friend, you must be very , very naive to appreciate the old fashioned dogmatism of this physically and intellectually smallgrown guy. At the beginning of the 21th century we don't need stupid fundamentalisms of any kind. We have intellectually grown up und and our worldview is both structured by scientific knowledge and openness to the the questions, that no human being will ever be able to answer. The stuff by D, is on a similar intellectual level as say scientology or the catechism of the catholic church or the theories of creationists. But this is simply not good enough and we must not settle for that. So, forget about this shabby little guru and start thinking yourself and informing yourself on the basis of real scientific textbooks. Good luck.Mehr anzeigen
Dear friend, please take this ridiculous pseudoscientific lollipop named Dawkins out of your mouth and begin thinking yourself. If you really need a Guru because you have never left your intellectual puberty, then make a better choice. Even for example Lionel Messi is operating on a higher intellectual level than this littel fossile from the past. But above all, start thinking.
I have suffered with alopecia thankfully only on my head all of my life so I know what the Professor is talking about. I have never had a cold or any ailment like that. My immune system is in over drive.
I was very fortunate. I got to know of him before he wrote "The God Delusion" when he was on Science Friday and was publicizing "The Ancestors Tale" and people calling in loved him so much. I too enjoyed his take on things, and was riveted by his words.
For those of you touting James Tour, he's a chemist and evolution primarily takes place at the species level not the chemical one. The definition says nothing of chemicals.
Oh, oh I see : So Evolution begins at the Species Level. Not even the Organic Level or The Organ Level but The Species Level. Wow - that is truly amazing ! But to think some of us are accused of asking too few questions, eh ?
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 Please reread my OP carefully, I wrote evolution primarily takes place at the species level not that it begins there. Understand?
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 Feel free to ask questions. The mutations happen in the genome, however the controlling effects of Natural Selection are the primary drivers of evolution and these happen at the population level. If you drive a vehicle you will note the importance of the physics, the chemistry and indeed the engineering in that vehicle. But it actually comes down to a driver to make the thing get anywhere. The operating drivers of any system are not often at the chemical level.
I think Evolution is a fact which describes the unfolding of The Universe. I recently heard a Professor of Chemistry essentially say that "The Universe was built by the fundamental Particles which built it." I trust you see my problem ? In short, I see absolutely no reason at all why The Theory of Evolution should negate the need for a Being - notwithstanding Dawkins sincere hope that it will.
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 Unfolding of the universe. You are equivocating cosmology and biology. There is only 1 theory of evolution, and that's genetic mutations and natural selection changing the frequency of alleles in a population group.
You make dolt Dawkins like a god. 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/
@@2fast2block Holy fk- coming from you! Yes Professor Richard Dawkins BSc, MSc, DPhil, PhD, FRS, FRSL….needs to learn from a knuckle dragging belter on RUclips.
ratti80 We are *VERY* curious creatures! We all know that and I love it. We seem to *need* to know why this and why that. But the problem is that we don't always have the knowledge of science and technology to figure a lot of our questions out. Religion provides an easy and understandable explanation to all of these questions. Why are we here? Who made us? Where did everything come from? Where do we go after we die? It can also provide people with control of others like preventing them from doing bad things and encouraging them to do good, maybe to convince people of breaking bones to haul that brick because God wants this shrine or whatever built. It is an easy way to control, encourage, answer, etc.
Hayden the douchebag However this still does not explain why we believe instead of using reason and evidence! And our morals do not come from religion but from our nature!
ratti80 back then we couldnt find out the "whys" but now i think it might be because an afterlife is much nicer to think about and if you grow up "knowing" something and thinking with faith you will likely stay that way. Should you touch that hot thing and see for yourself or should you just take your mom's word for it? This mentality at a young age is another reasonable idea that might explain why they just take the parent's word for it, and/or maybe because that is their only source of info so if they say it, it must be true.So if you grow up forever thinking that when you throw things up they fall down, what could possibly be the chances that they will dart sideways and then upward?
Hayden the douchebag You are right! However you explained the how not the why! Sure we were searching for answers regarding how things work etc. an%40thout evidence. But, still today humans stick to their believe although the evidence suggests another explanation. But why do we believe? More than 40% of US citizen believe in creationism and not in evolution. Although it is 100% certain that life evolved!
Ok, dear friends, we agree, that D. is essentially a little intellectually limited fossile from the past. You are really deplorable if you take his stuff honestly serious. Read some real scientific textbooks. Start thinking yourself now and becon intellectually grown up ! Read Kant, Einstein and some papers about relativistic quantum field theory ! Then you will never again turn to a ridiculous Guru like D.
"celebrating 200 years of raising hell with our bains ... sometimes quite literally" perfect way to open this speach on evolutionary biology. So ironic.
I believe that ummers tend to be overpriveleged because they assume what they have to say is so important that they can afford to make you waste you time waiting for them to spit it out already.
"...and a simple single cell appeared..." but there is no such thing as a simple cell - cells are small - but they are as complex as a whole organism - its fractal. In terms of complexity you may as well say "and the animals came out two by two" from the primordial swamp
The first cell on earth was obviously much simpler than cells today, dumbass. You skipped the 3.8 billion years of evolution. No surprise, you probably just deny it.
He still talks about the same things that he talked about 30 years ago. No updates. No changes. No improvements. It says a lot about the low expectations of his audiences that no one ever calls him out on this.
De Selby. . Well, some people still talking about the same things 2000 years old, no updates, no changes, no improvements. It says a lot about their flocks expectations.
Evolution takes millions of years to develope (weeks, hours in bacteria) further updates will be a couple million years from now, please stay still and wait.
Dear friend, you must be very , very naive to appreciate the old fashioned dogmatism of this physically and intellectually smallgrown guy. At the beginning of the 21th century we don't need stupid fundamentalisms of any kind. We have intellectually grown up und and our worldview is both structured by scientific knowledge and openness to the the questions, that no human being will ever be able to answer. The stuff by D, is on a similar intellectual level as say scientology or the catechism of the catholic church or the theories of creationists. But this is simply not good enough and we must not settle for that. So, forget about this shabby little guru and start thinking yourself and informing yourself on the basis of real scientific textbooks. Good luck.Mehr anzeigen
i have technical disagreements with dawkins re multilevel selection. but i once spotted him at a pub in oxford and happened to be carrying a copy of the selfish gene. while he was leaving i called “professor dawkins!” and asked if he’d sign the book. he was very kind and very happy to do it. i apologized not knowing if the attention was welcomed, but his wife smiled and said, “he loves this!”
To the comments referring to the self consuming aspect of evolution and a common ancestor I would like to give my humble analysis of the situation. That's true if you only take into account the method by which creatures devour one another. Please consider this: if a single celled organism were to divide into multiple organisms and head off in two different directions for centuries they would eventually evolve to adapt to their environments. Now, let's say that one environment is more adverse than the other and that that genetic species living in that environment, which I will refer to as Cell B, experiences a genetic mutation which allows it to consume another living species, perhaps the other cell (which I will refer to as cell A). This would allow for Cell B to survive by consuming Cell A and further perpetuating the species, which at this point is life in general. Thank you for the time that you took to read this.
All of the science deniers in this comment section make me wish eugenics was a successful endeavor.... Please, if you don't understand basic science, don't attempt to refute a concept, like evolution, that you couldn't possibly comprehend.
I have no problem with science, but the evolution theory just simply rubbish. They just excited to place their name as the pioneer, the thinker and so on. So do they know what the human will evolve later? I heard they always recognize among them as the clever ones, poor guys
The human eye by evolution over many thousands of years the eyes evolution but the human eye is not perfection of eye would be able to see in the dark and infrared, ultrasonic, this show whilst impressive is not perfect! Other things in the human body could be improved! This shows evolution ironing out or improving also we can see from 16 th centuary doors where often lower the life span and average height was shorter! Medicine, technology and science has evolved!
COULD BE? This is your proof that we have evolved from some primordial slime to monkeys to the present? no wonder you people get ridiculed all the time! Evolution cannot be all things at once to explain away its flaws. in fact, you should be able to explain to us non believers how this organism evolved in step by step fashion. If evolution is to be accepted as fact, then it must pass the test that the other sciences have, namely empirical testing
RD is a joke. 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/
My previously cherished explanation for our origins, natural selection, doesn’t account for music, language, synchronicity, functional complexity, and the specificity of entheogen effects. I now see that this is all some kind of big simulation in which I have been lied to and will continue to be lied to. I hate it.
I nailed a Mormon about a year ago.Its the standard (are you saying I evolved from an ape).My reply was have you ever read Origin of Species or taken an anthropology class is that what the theory is. Uhhhhhh no but that is what people say. I told him I never said it you did. Next the coup de grace I asked "do I look Chinese" then he hesitated because I had him he finally said no then I said why??? Silence.... so I answered for him because my ancestors did evolve an eye fold right??? He kept quite again. He never came back.
Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
I like how Dawkins emphasizes that his book is written for children while dressing an audience of adults. My take is that the adults are too far gone so there is still hope for humanity if you reach them early enough.
If you released this one scene, building, dawkins, as a standalone FPS for Dreamcast 2 they wouldn't stop playing till xmas 2025 and spend £300, Bz crack knuckles.
david johanson isn't he buster pointdexter it is hot hot hot it like 80 at 3am (78.5 actually was 80 at midnight ) Pressure 30.06 in Visibility 10.0 miles Clouds Clear Heat Index 82 °F Dew Point 73 °F Humidity 85% Rainfall 0.00 in
I agree, he's obsessed about religion and it distracts from the science and I find it infuriating because I really do love this man but goddamn, I just want to hear him go DEEP on the science without being distracted by theology
@@yanquiufo7113 you mean dolt Dawkins knows 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/
Intellectually entertaining. Words are cut exacting to the meaning delivered poetically. thanks and keep up with the good work professor Dawkins. From HK
Dawkins is a Natural Born Idiot. He is Recycling old fashioned pseudoarguments from the past. His intellectual Niveau is extremelx low. You must be utterly naive to take such a guy seriously.
The Connoisseur only natural born idiot here and troll on top of that are you. You paste same nonsense beneath each post like broken record. You are an idiot!
Ed, he's a dolt. 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/
If _"coins"_ and _"toast"_ at 21:26 _"know nothing about your desire"_ then on what basis do atoms and molecules *know how to write a book* as evolution demands..?
@ Mike Bellamy The problem may be that you don't actually know what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection actually is. Atoms and molecules don't "know" anything, let alone how to write a book, even speaking metaphorically. I see that you also believe that "evolution....has been falsified", but even if it had, how would you know? Can I recommend that you watch Daniel Dennett's lecture (several versions on Utube) on "Darwin's Strange Inversion of Reason", which explains how simple non-thinking entities evolve into more complex things? It's not hard to follow.
@@MrDorbel I have listened/watched Dennett, Dawkins, Kraus, Harris and anyone else you would like post.. They are arguing philosophy not science.. I know evolution has been falsified because I discovered a "number" new to thermodynamics which applies to the second law and answers the final fall back position of secular science "you can't prove its not possible" well I have solved that: I don't have to prove its not possible I only have to prove it violates the second law of thermodynamics.. Done paper in progress of being written. QED.
@@mikebellamy Science does not ever say, "You can't prove it's not possible"! What it says to new ideas is, "Show me that this is possible and a necessary and sufficient explanation of reality". I look forward to your paper!
@@mikebellamy We are biological beings trying to figure out our environment. You don't see the forest for the trees. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Have you refuted this research? Of course not. "I know evolution has been falsified because I discovered a "number" new to thermodynamics which applies to the second law and answers the final fall back position of secular science" That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. You don't even grasp the basics of science, yet I'm to believe you falsified evolution with something that has nothing to do with it? The earth gets new energy on a daily basis from the sun, which fuels all thermodynamic processes on earth, so your silly 2nd law argument is laughably bad. Entropy doesn't become an issue for complex life until the sun runs out of energy. Another scientific illiterate dispatched.
Because you're stooo-pid 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. 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/
Not being a scientist a couple questions I would ask is : Are there more Eisenstein's now then 50 or 100 years ago? Or why haven't we evolved our way out of religion? I would say we are gaining ground when it comes to religion but it's taking too long.
" God creating man from the dust of the earth" (abiogenesis) is for science to articulate -eventually! Why and for what purpose is far, far more important than trying to justify the male ego's lust for power, domination and moral autonomy. As Jean Paul Sartre profanely declared "if God exists I am not free. Since I am free therefore God does not exist." As Pascal observed "some people believe whatever they want, not on the basis of evidence but what they find attractive" And there's something very attractive apparently, about a morality that is merely a spinoff from socio-biological evolution.
25m0s Unfortunately, mathematicians can much more succinctly explain the fallacies people make in computing probability of the next event happening than Dr Dawkins does struggling verbosely to express Bayes' Theorem.
Dolt Dawkins needs a LOT of miracles. 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/
Iredia UyiEvidence against evolution1) Species are generally observed remaining the same over time with relatively little amount of variation2) Random mutations have never been seen to build new genetic information3) There's nothing backing the assumption that similarities between different species proves common ancestry4) The fossil record only shows species that still exist or a viable species gone extinct. Never species with clear cut intermediate feature
1) Species are generally observed remaining the same over time with relatively little amount of variation Species are observed to remain relatively the same- yes. But over longer time periods they change. Incidentally- speciation has been observed in our lifetime- so your claim isn't exactly true. 2) Random mutations have never been seen to build new genetic information. Not true. Random mutations have indeed been shown to build new genetic information. A quick google search will provide you with lists. 3) There's nothing backing the assumption that similarities between different species proves common ancestry. I assume you mean the simple act of just comparing genomes. In fact that is wrong- but when added to say comparing older genomes, or tracing ERV histories across a number of related species and then cross checking against the fossil record- well that's a different matter. 4) The fossil record only shows species that still exist or a viable species gone extinct. Never species with clear cut intermediate feature That one is an outright lie. Sorry. I don't know if it is your or you simply parrotted it. But in fact the lists of transitional forms across genus and clade and species is rather huge.
***** 1) There's no good evidence showing that species change over deep time. In fact, there are living fossils of species which still exist today. They remain unchanged. 2) I have actually gone over some supposed examples of random mutations building new genetic information and find nothing convincing. But even supposing it were true (it's not) that random mutations does build new genetic information this doesn't mean it's a viable source of building ever-increasing complexity. One problem is that whatever random mutations does it can easily undo precisely because it is random. Another problem is that mutations are constrained in where they can occur. Some portions of the genome mutate more than the other. Some portions can't tolerate even a single mutation. Many genetic disorders attest to this. There's also Hox genes responsible for coding the body plan of an organism which are highly conserved 3) Oh no, not the simple act of comparing genomes. Evolutionists commonly presume that similarities among different species show that they come from a common ancestor. So in comparative genomics finding out similar gesnes in different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. Or in embryology similarity in ontogeny proves common descent. Then in comparative anatomy similarity in morphology is evidrnce of common descent. But there's nothing that supports this assumption. In other words, there's no reason to believe that just because one finds shares characteristics across different species therefore one must infer common descent. 4) It's not a lie but I'll let you have your way with this one.
Iredia Uyi 1) Extant species similar to ancient forms is not evidence against evolution. Evolution is adaption to environment. If a species is well adapted- it won't change. 2) Random mutation is not the only driver in evolution. Natural Selection (and a few other minor drivers) take over and the random element is gone. If a mutation is beneficial in some way it is likely to be passed on. If it achieves population density then evolution progresses. The Caucasian adaption for dairy consumption is an example. as is the lighter colour skin which increases Vit D processing in cooler/ cloudier climates. Those adaptions happened as humans moved North. HoX gene switches in insects have been turned on and off and shown to cause antennae to become limbs. HoX genes in mutation and epigenetic action are part of the morphological changes in animals. 3) Or ERV histories which coincide with the fossil record to match family trees of species and clades.
***** 1) This is nonsense because all species that evolved over time where already well adapted to their environment. For example, evolution teaches that fishes evolved over time to become amphibians but fishes were already well adapted to their aquatic environment. Evolution is not adaptation to environment, it is the change in the heritable traits of a species over time. Again the fact of old fossils of species that exist unchanged today contradicts evolution. 2) This doesn't help for two reasons. One, random mutations tend to destroy and degade more than they build; it is a FACT that beneficial mutations are rare therefore it is an error in logic to presume that they can build the ever increasing complexity required for change in a species over time. No one will allow thselves get bathed in mutagen s or X-rays so they randomly mutate more so they can evolve better features and the reason is simple random mutations destroy.more than it builds. Look at Chernobyl for example. Lots of random mutation from the radioactive explosion that happened there. It caused lots of genetic disorders aborted fetuses, freak babies etc. Two, natural selection can and does allow a beneficial mutation thrive, but the extent to which it can do this is limited. It is limited by the fact of genetic drift whereby a species can die by chance without respect to their level of adaptation. Even the fittest may not get to pass on their genes. Or the unfit may get to pass on their genes. Look at Stephen Hawkings, brilliant man no doubt but quite unfit from an evolutionary perspective and yet he still has kids. This brings me to my second point, that in sexual organisms such evolution is limited since only germline mutations can be passed on.Therefore an organism might have a beneficial mutation but because it didn't happen in its gamete this beneficial mutation doesn't get passed on. And that is why Hawking's can still give birth to fit children although his survival is handicapped. That said your point on Hox genes is moot. Hox genes are very sensitive to mutations. Even in your example a mutation in the Hox gene caused an organ to grow in the wrong place. Besides they are similar across vast species so they don't change. Now after alll I've said I would be surprised if you still believe that random mutation is a good means of getting functional new genetic information. 3) My claim is that there is.nothing supporting the asption that similarities across different species shows common ancestry between them. Try refuting it.
Iredia Uyi 1) Wrong. The environment is in constant change. Small changes in a major environmental force can cause significant changes in local ones. Fish and other aquatic creatures are very susceptible to those changes. Changes in nutrient level, salinity, temperature and any other number of shifts change aquatic environments. But since the tectonic plates have been ever in motion, other factors play a part. The Ring of Fire off the West Coast of the USA should give you another clue as to how this happens. 2) Also wrong. The majority of mutations tend to be benign. Most humans carry around 80 of them. Some are harmful, some are beneficial. Whether a mutation is beneficial can be related to environment. Evolution is only interested in reproduction. So someone like Hawking can pass on the genes for a disease- but as long as the offspring survive long enough and do pass on their genetic material- then the job is done. After that it matters not. 3) One such refutation is found in ERV insertions. Creationist sites have been in a panic since this one surfaced and they have tried without effect to claim it doesn't matter. It does. The best they get to do is claim the ERV's are something else. A spurious nonsense. If an ancestor individual is infected by an ERV the ERV leaves a genetic marker randomly in the chromosone. The randomness is of note here cos that makes it easy to identify in descendant species. Anything with that same marker in the same place is descended from that individual. Where a species divides the ERV is in both. Where another branch species also gets an ERV insertion, then we can identify now its ancestry and its descendants- AND we can note its relationship to the related but uninfected species. This can be traced over and over again through more and more species over the millenia. And we have done this with many. The usual response I get to this is denial that they are ERV's or some daft lecture on ERV's (usually lifted from a creationist site) with no actual argument- just avoidance.
At what point, even before evolution, even before the first molecule, did the journey towards consciousness begin? Even more fascinating than the question of ‘how’ is question of ‘why’? Did it fulfill some destiny of existence or was it just the hundred monkeys typing away, that got lucky and produced a meaningless Universe? The road is always waiting….
Consciousness only comes with life, with that Consciousness arrives only when the 1st life begins, here in earth 3.6 ish billion years ago but who knows if it started else where before that. Consciousness doesn't start pre life, it emerged with life. More a case of all the ingredients were there from the bang was just a case of time before the right combination mixes and more time after that.
How to know and understand the best of bio-logical dynamical information distribution and assembly, is to hear a reasonably domesticated, scientifically researched theory, ie a refined, orderly and categorical interpretation of the chaotic observations of theologians. If there's order in the Universe, it has to be assessed by expertise of Professor Dawkins standard, and fitted to Cosmology, also in reasonable and rational proportions of repeatable, reiterative methodology. (Ie Take no one's word for it, recalculate from first principles)
Dawkins is a Natural Born Idiot. He is Recycling old fashioned pseudoarguments from the past. His intellectual Niveau is extremelx low. You must be utterly naive to take such a guy seriously.
Dear friend, you must be very , very naive to appreciate the old fashioned dogmatism of this physically and intellectually smallgrown guy. At the beginning of the 21th century we don't need stupid fundamentalisms of any kind. We have intellectually grown up und and our worldview is both structured by scientific knowledge and openness to the the questions, that no human being will ever be able to answer. The stuff by D, is on a similar intellectual level as say scientology or the catechism of the catholic church or the theories of creationists. But this is simply not good enough and we must not settle for that. So, forget about this shabby little guru and start thinking yourself and informing yourself on the basis of real scientific textbooks. Good luck.Mehr anzeigen
The problem with religions is that science cannot disprove God or any other deity, just like it cannot disprove the existence of Santa or flying unicorns. It is then incumbent on religion to provide a clear and convincing evidence to anything it claims. Religions started since the dawn of humanity and it is conceivable to attribute lots of unexplainable things in nature to a God back then, and since humans tend to follow their societies in a herd manner, religions still exist till today.
Starts around 9:20
Thanks! 😊
+Adam Mangler I always scroll down and look for these. Thanks!
+Adam Mangler More like 9:43
I bow to your more discriminating chronology.
*__*
You're doing the Lord's work, Adam.
I’m a great admirer of Richard Dawkins. I could listen to him all day.
@God hates IiberaIs Evidence please
@God hates IiberaIs Keep your medieval religion to yourself.
@@rickychang2893 You are mentioned in second Peter ch 3.
Its not at all shocking how many troll accounts are being shut down on science videos . Every video on this subject attracts tons of " Truth Seekers " and " Justa Theory " types but I have noticed that many are no longer in use . Proof that they were designwd for only trolling .
@@mikeygarcia8271 Spinosa's God is not an intelligence .
the good part starts at 9:20.... just in case anyone wants to skip the opening speech before Richard Dawkins speaks
Thank you
Thanks very much
Thank you, that kid isn't even human
More like 9:43
I thought it was the bad part that started there!
I just wanted to say that Paul Mitchell, the young man who introduced the program, is an inspiration himself. His presentation/introduction, was eye-catching and well-prepared. I saw a young man with a handle on eloquent, well spoken speech that introduced the program with sophistication and evidence that education is not lost.
+John Wallace by the way....if you need a job....contact me. jww2025@gmail.com
Thank you for recognizing the young man who is the M.C.
I too thought he was quite well spoken. Far better than I could ever be even today, let alone at a similar age.
R. Dawkins is one of my favorite mentors. I feel proud to be living in the age of Sagan, Hitchens, Hawkins, and especialy Dawkins.
+bishplis Joseph Nordenbrock has presumably been alive for some of the decades before they died.
+Joseph Nordenbrock Hawkins who? You mean Hawking?
Also, there's Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
+Joseph Nordenbrock THE FOOD CHAIN IS PREDATORY IN NATURE. SINCE CHARLES DARWIN STATES EVERYTHING EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ORIGIN WOULD ONLY MEANS LIFE WOULD HAVE EATEN ITSELF INTO EXTINCTIONS FROM THE START. THIS ALONE KILLS EVOLUTION IN IT'S TRACK. IF I LABEL EVOLUTION AS GARBAGE I'M BEING VERY KIND. IT MORE LIKE PILES OF BULLSHIT WITH FLIES ALL OVER IT.
+Joseph Nordenbrock What's with Frank289100 and the all caps? Hey Frank, you bring up a point but isn't it possible reproduction outpaced consumption? You only have to stay ahead by a few and after 100,000 years that becomes a very large lead.
+Diego O' Land IT IS IMPOSSIBLE DIEGO. THE PREDATORY FOOD CHAIN IN NATURE MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR EVOLUTION TO EVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
What a marvellously intelligent man, tells how it is in no uncertain terms. All Richards videos add to my education. Thank you so much RUclips, a true shining star in a confused world. Cheers SBM.
He's a joke like you are.
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/
I just love Richard Dawkins. He’s so straight forward and yet so damn funny at the same time without even trying to be funny.
Yes but is he correct?
@@kenbar4761 Yes
@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 He's a doofus lie you are.
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/
This is a breath of fresh air. Just yesterday a hard core Christian tried threatening me by saying demons were real and the devil was going to get me. I’m an atheist , and this video really helps to counteract the total nonsense I had to listen to yesterday.
only insecure men threaten. God has no such insecurity. Check the video "The Ghosts of Evolution - The Terrors of Natural History" the fear of demons and ghosts is evolutionary baggage from primates under threat from snakes, large cats and other predators in the night. Superstition takes advantage of this human evolutionary baggage.
@@prometheusunchained4236 thank you so much for the suggestion- I’ll definitely check it out! It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that a fear of predators in the dark helped our ancestors survive.
i thought this was about evolution?
is he still moaning about god?
@@prometheusunchained4236 really
“Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing.” ― Thomas Henry Huxley
@Dee Giant good way to try and attack him personally rather than his ideas.
The same Huxley who would later say of Spiritualism - "Even if it was true I would not be interested."
@@PLASKETT7 Many things are true but not personally interesting of course.
@@MrDorbel er...that would seem to me, Señor, to be going somewhat against his quote supplied by Microneus above.
No?
Or was Señor Huxley admitting to, in his dismissal of that manifestation of something supernatural, what might be termed something by way of "A conflict of loyalties".
What say you?
@@PLASKETT7 No. If for example God makes a personal appearance simultaneously to every person on the planet tomorrow and says, "Get down on your knees and worship or go to hell", I wouldn't be interested in that either. Ditto Huxley.
What a great talk. It's nice to see him delivering a talk to people at a higher level. I've learned a lot from watching this. I've previously seen him in the trenches battling creationist loons. Wonderful to hear and learn such interesting thoughts and facts on evolution at a higher level, really shows what a good public educator Richard Dawkins really is.
He's a dolt like you are.
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 is tremendously brilliant. He is and always will be a genius.
Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
If he were to suffer terrible brain damage he might not be as brilliant. I don't want that to happen but it could
Dawkins is brilliant but Darwin is a genius.Charles Darwin is an Einstein of Biology
Why is he a genius?
@@jarrygarry5316 Exactly.Dawkins is only famous for being an outspoken atheist that's all.He hasn't come up with anything new or revolutionary that will benefit mankind.He is just a big noise.
I can't help but admire Dawkins patience to answer the same questions over and over again, it must be exhausting to be as famous an atheist as he is and be asked "what do you believe if you don't believe in god?" At least once after every (unrelated) lecture.
Can hear his lectures forever. Thank you Richard.
Me too & i'm from Mars.
Gege Anderson Why? This man is an idiot.
@Kitalia the kitsune Psalm 14:1.
@Kitalia the kitsune Proverbs 3:5-8.
@Kitalia the kitsune Proverbs 22:6
An excellent and beautiful lecture! Thanks, Professor Dawkins! He said an alternate title would be "Proof, Science, & Skepticism" .
You thank this F00L.
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/
How come we readily accept what (DIFERENT) scientists tell us about this or that space feature, as if they are infallible while never asking ourselves that is it not logical to believe that because what they say goes almost totally unquestioned (it must) effect their honesty, as it would in any other area of understanding?
“POWER CORUPTS, AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRIPTS ABSOLULUTELY”: LORD ACTON.
And even if what they say is challenged, is there not a kind of old boys’ club, that is careful not to allow too many openings of enquiry, in case the enquirers leave themselves vulnerable? Scientists are just people, with all the failings that all people are prone to?
: “All is vanity saithe the Preacher”: Ecclesiastics…
Darwin,Dawkins,Herrari...we are moving forward👏👏👏Lunatics have to surrender soon and accept evolution 💪
No they do not ... religion skews everything
RD and you are 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.
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/
Lots of people in the comments that get their science off the church Pastor.
Right around one hour and 20 minutes the audience asked him if he thinks, because of advances in medicine and what not, that there’s any more evolution involved in the human species. I think Dawkins misunderstood the questions and answered as if the gentleman had asked about artificial or a human guided or eugenic evolution.
And the last question was are there certain humans that are more predisposed to rational or irrational thoughts than others, genetically, and he also misunderstood that one. I would’ve loved to have heard his answers to both.
Dawkins is a dolt.
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/
HE IS DELUDED TOO!
He is such a good speaker and a brilliant mind.
And you just eat up his nonsense. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2blockthe scientific consensus isnt that the universe came from nothing
I don't agree with some of his more metaphysical and philosophical claims. But he is scientifically smart, it seems, I'll grant that. It's interesting. I can tell he is strong about his ideas because of some of the more anti science circles out there. This guy actually increased some of my mysterious wonder just now.
Starts with that crowd pleaser every time, said it when he gave a talk at Redhill Weatherspoons
Dr. Dawkins is simply.......brilliant! When he eventually passes, the world will lose a leading scientist and thinker. We need more people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking, DeGrasse Tyson, Krauss, Sam Harris, and others of their caliber and intelligence.
Dr10Jeeps ...most of them hopelessly ignorant to the fact that aliens have been influencing this fact since the year dot.....don/t think so? See ‘to the stars academy’ the re-education programme has started.
Dawkins is an idiot
Randian Winn bill nye is an idiot too.
They are fools.
@ady nails Get a life, you're pathetic
I wish I could meet him in person.
Dawkins is a Natural Born Idiot. He is Recycling old fashioned pseudoarguments from the past. His intellectual Niveau is extremelx low. You must be utterly naive to take such a guy seriously.
Dear friend, you must be very , very naive to appreciate the old fashioned dogmatism of this physically and intellectually smallgrown guy. At the beginning of the 21th century we don't need stupid fundamentalisms of any kind. We have intellectually grown up und and our worldview is both structured by scientific knowledge and openness to the the questions, that no human being will ever be able to answer. The stuff by D, is on a similar intellectual level as say scientology or the catechism of the catholic church or the theories of creationists. But this is simply not good enough and we must not settle for that. So, forget about this shabby little guru and start thinking yourself and informing yourself on the basis of real scientific textbooks. Good luck.Mehr anzeigen
@@theconnoisseur2346 tries to look smart, writes 21th haha oh god
Dear friend, please take this ridiculous pseudoscientific lollipop named Dawkins out of your mouth and begin thinking yourself. If you really need a Guru because you have never left your intellectual puberty, then make a better choice. Even for example Lionel Messi is operating on a higher intellectual level than this littel fossile from the past. But above all, start thinking.
@@theconnoisseur2346 Personal attacks show you have no real arguments. Poor trolling.
I have suffered with alopecia thankfully only on my head all of my life so I know what the Professor is talking about. I have never had a cold or any ailment like that. My immune system is in over drive.
truthhurts101
Don't immuno-suppressants like restasis (cyclosporin) help such things?
Same for people with psoriasis
Starts 11:00
I was very fortunate. I got to know of him before he wrote "The God Delusion" when he was on Science Friday and was publicizing "The Ancestors Tale" and people calling in loved him so much. I too enjoyed his take on things, and was riveted by his words.
What if this one says eyes does not exist because one is blind... Main time there is billion of evidence that people have eyes
evolution made my cell phone
For those of you touting James Tour, he's a chemist and evolution primarily takes place at the species level not the chemical one. The definition says nothing of chemicals.
@Ricahrd P'Brien Completely agree, thank you for such a detailed response.
@Ricahrd P'Brien 👍
Oh, oh I see : So Evolution begins at the Species Level. Not even the Organic Level or The Organ Level but The Species Level. Wow - that is truly amazing !
But to think some of us are accused of asking too few questions, eh ?
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 Please reread my OP carefully, I wrote evolution primarily takes place at the species level not that it begins there. Understand?
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320
Feel free to ask questions.
The mutations happen in the genome, however the controlling effects of Natural Selection are the primary drivers of evolution and these happen at the population level.
If you drive a vehicle you will note the importance of the physics, the chemistry and indeed the engineering in that vehicle. But it actually comes down to a driver to make the thing get anywhere. The operating drivers of any system are not often at the chemical level.
Not a single evolution denier in the comments knows what it is or the definition. Typical.
I think Evolution is a fact which describes the unfolding of The Universe. I recently heard a Professor of Chemistry essentially say that "The Universe was built by the fundamental Particles which built it."
I trust you see my problem ?
In short, I see absolutely no reason at all why The Theory of Evolution should negate the need for a Being - notwithstanding Dawkins sincere hope that it will.
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 I was talking about biological evolution.
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 That's not evolution, silly.
@@billy9144 What isn`t Evolution ?
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 Unfolding of the universe. You are equivocating cosmology and biology. There is only 1 theory of evolution, and that's genetic mutations and natural selection changing the frequency of alleles in a population group.
“Science has its own magic, the magic of reality” love that quote
“Sometimes, the cancer cells win.”
Me: Thinks Christopher Hitchens 😢
Skip to 9:30
We are blessed to have him before us.
You make dolt Dawkins like a god.
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/
@@2fast2block Holy fk- coming from you! Yes Professor Richard Dawkins BSc, MSc, DPhil, PhD, FRS, FRSL….needs to learn from a knuckle dragging belter on RUclips.
Dawkins starts at 9:30
Does anybody know if there is an evolutionary explanation for humans to be religious?
ratti80 We are *VERY* curious creatures! We all know that and I love it. We seem to *need* to know why this and why that. But the problem is that we don't always have the knowledge of science and technology to figure a lot of our questions out. Religion provides an easy and understandable explanation to all of these questions. Why are we here? Who made us? Where did everything come from? Where do we go after we die? It can also provide people with control of others like preventing them from doing bad things and encouraging them to do good, maybe to convince people of breaking bones to haul that brick because God wants this shrine or whatever built. It is an easy way to control, encourage, answer, etc.
I'm still working on the evolutionary explanation for irony
Hayden the douchebag However this still does not explain why we believe instead of using reason and evidence! And our morals do not come from religion but from our nature!
ratti80 back then we couldnt find out the "whys" but now i think it might be because an afterlife is much nicer to think about and if you grow up "knowing" something and thinking with faith you will likely stay that way. Should you touch that hot thing and see for yourself or should you just take your mom's word for it? This mentality at a young age is another reasonable idea that might explain why they just take the parent's word for it, and/or maybe because that is their only source of info so if they say it, it must be true.So if you grow up forever thinking that when you throw things up they fall down, what could possibly be the chances that they will dart sideways and then upward?
Hayden the douchebag You are right! However you explained the how not the why! Sure we were searching for answers regarding how things work etc. an%40thout evidence. But, still today humans stick to their believe although the evidence suggests another explanation. But why do we believe? More than 40% of US citizen believe in creationism and not in evolution. Although it is 100% certain that life evolved!
The day we'll lose Richard, would be the day I'll cry the most
God hates IiberaIs he isn’t pedophile, but strangely most pedophiles are in religious cults like yours. Christianity is full of pedophiles.
Ok, dear friends, we agree, that D. is essentially a little intellectually limited fossile from the past. You are really deplorable if you take his stuff honestly serious. Read some real scientific textbooks. Start thinking yourself now and becon intellectually grown up ! Read Kant, Einstein and some papers about relativistic quantum field theory ! Then you will never again turn to a ridiculous Guru like D.
The Connoisseur you can only copy paste same shit, that’s all you got? Like I said, pathetic.
The Connoisseur Einstein was very complimentary and supportive of Darwin’s theories.
I won't be happy but I doubt I will cry . Wtf ?
"celebrating 200 years of raising hell with our bains ... sometimes quite literally" perfect way to open this speach on evolutionary biology. So ironic.
Evolution is not a believe
1:06:00 ummm ummmm ah ummm ummm ummm ah ah ummm ummm
I believe that ummers tend to be overpriveleged because they assume what they have to say is so important that they can afford to make you waste you time waiting for them to spit it out already.
Thankyou for sharing this.
"raising hell with our brains" in our secret society. Sounds like something out of skyrim.
"...and a simple single cell appeared..." but there is no such thing as a simple cell - cells are small - but they are as complex as a whole organism - its fractal. In terms of complexity you may as well say "and the animals came out two by two" from the primordial swamp
The first cell on earth was obviously much simpler than cells today, dumbass. You skipped the 3.8 billion years of evolution. No surprise, you probably just deny it.
He still talks about the same things that he talked about 30 years ago. No updates. No changes. No improvements. It says a lot about the low expectations of his audiences that no one ever calls him out on this.
De Selby. . Well, some people still talking about the same things 2000 years old, no updates, no changes, no improvements. It says a lot about their flocks expectations.
@@joandrex LMFAO!!! Excellent response!!!
Evolution takes millions of years to develope (weeks, hours in bacteria) further updates will be a couple million years from now, please stay still and wait.
lol are you expecting him to say we came from a parallel universe?
video start at 9 .40
Brilliant guy indeed!
Dear friend, you must be very , very naive to appreciate the old fashioned dogmatism of this physically and intellectually smallgrown guy. At the beginning of the 21th century we don't need stupid fundamentalisms of any kind. We have intellectually grown up und and our worldview is both structured by scientific knowledge and openness to the the questions, that no human being will ever be able to answer. The stuff by D, is on a similar intellectual level as say scientology or the catechism of the catholic church or the theories of creationists. But this is simply not good enough and we must not settle for that. So, forget about this shabby little guru and start thinking yourself and informing yourself on the basis of real scientific textbooks. Good luck.Mehr anzeigen
i have technical disagreements with dawkins re multilevel selection. but i once spotted him at a pub in oxford and happened to be carrying a copy of the selfish gene. while he was leaving i called “professor dawkins!” and asked if he’d sign the book. he was very kind and very happy to do it. i apologized not knowing if the attention was welcomed, but his wife smiled and said, “he loves this!”
I thought this was going to be a lecture on evolution. I wish Dr Dawkins would just leave philosophy alone
that's what evolution is - philosophy. i been telling you people
meyerius' own
Your wish is ignorant.
meyerius’ own
You're a moron who should shut the fuck up.
I agree, he's not a good philosopher. He's a great evolutionary theorist though
To the comments referring to the self consuming aspect of evolution and a common ancestor I would like to give my humble analysis of the situation. That's true if you only take into account the method by which creatures devour one another. Please consider this: if a single celled organism were to divide into multiple organisms and head off in two different directions for centuries they would eventually evolve to adapt to their environments. Now, let's say that one environment is more adverse than the other and that that genetic species living in that environment, which I will refer to as Cell B, experiences a genetic mutation which allows it to consume another living species, perhaps the other cell (which I will refer to as cell A). This would allow for Cell B to survive by consuming Cell A and further perpetuating the species, which at this point is life in general. Thank you for the time that you took to read this.
"God hates liberals" is like Kent Hovind, without the intelligence and honesty.
Kent Hovind, intelligent and honest. That’s why he was jailed for fraud 😂😂😂
"wasting time and wasting goats..." best line of the vod 1:34:15
is it me or does he sound like c3po?
He's English. Just like Anthony Daniels.
And they both have softer tone of voice. :)
It’s you ass munch
Haha yeah he kind of does
It’s you
Love this man and his intellect. Kind of like what Harry Potter's going to be when he's 80.
All of the science deniers in this comment section make me wish eugenics was a successful endeavor....
Please, if you don't understand basic science, don't attempt to refute a concept, like evolution, that you couldn't possibly comprehend.
bokurawauta
--- Without creationists who would perform all of the menial tasks that society needs done?
Number Six What does belief in a myth or understanding of science have to do with one's ability to do work?
--- I was being tongue in cheek.
Number Six Got it.
I have no problem with science, but the evolution theory just simply rubbish. They just excited to place their name as the pioneer, the thinker and so on. So do they know what the human will evolve later? I heard they always recognize among them as the clever ones, poor guys
starts at 9:40
The human eye by evolution over many thousands of years the eyes evolution but the human eye is not perfection of eye would be able to see in the dark and infrared, ultrasonic, this show whilst impressive is not perfect! Other things in the human body could be improved! This shows evolution ironing out or improving also we can see from 16 th centuary doors where often lower the life span and average height was shorter! Medicine, technology and science has evolved!
COULD BE? This is your proof that we have evolved from some primordial slime to monkeys to the present? no wonder you people get ridiculed all the time! Evolution cannot be all things at once to explain away its flaws. in fact, you should be able to explain to us non believers how this organism evolved in step by step fashion. If evolution is to be accepted as fact, then it must pass the test that the other sciences have, namely empirical testing
Matt Smith there are fundamental mechanical reasons why the human eye cannot ‘see’ ultrasonics.
We don't need that, or we would have it.
I can no longer find a Dawkins speech I haven’t seen or at least heard. But I DO think Dawkins meant “tech tonic Plates” instead of Tutonic Plates.
Dawkin is just a normal racist bully guy
Thanks you for the talk Richard Dawkins. I just read the Sokal paper, it is quite a funny joke.
RD is a joke.
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/
My previously cherished explanation for our origins, natural selection, doesn’t account for music, language, synchronicity, functional complexity, and the specificity of entheogen effects. I now see that this is all some kind of big simulation in which I have been lied to and will continue to be lied to. I hate it.
Search Richard Dawkins on Memes.
I am curious where is this building that Dawkins is praising. I would love to see it online.
Still going. You are the love of my life, Richard.
THANK you, Dr Dawkins, for DEMOLISHING this stupid KARMA myth.
Global Warming is karma. It's also true.
@@nmarbletoe8210 prove it
I nailed a Mormon about a year ago.Its the standard (are you saying I evolved from an ape).My reply was have you ever read Origin of Species or taken an anthropology class is that what the theory is. Uhhhhhh no but that is what people say. I told him I never said it you did. Next the coup de grace I asked "do I look Chinese" then he hesitated because I had him he finally said no then I said why??? Silence.... so I answered for him because my ancestors did evolve an eye fold right??? He kept quite again. He never came back.
dont be too mad at them. their whole reality has only been consuming garbage information. i would know. i was raised a jehovahs witness.
@@chikifree agreed
00:09:23
To get to Dawkins and bypass *BOTH* obnoxious Introductory Lectures of Tedium.
{:o:O:}
I hate the introductions to all these academic lectures. Everyone in attendance I’m sure is aware of Dawkins and his credentials.
Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
There r plenty of people who r uncircumcised in the world so I don't see any importance as to why one should b sircumcised.
It also says the earth is 6000 years old...its on the billions
24:13
dawkins talking about dhoni
what in the multiverse is going on
I like how Dawkins emphasizes that his book is written for children while dressing an audience of adults. My take is that the adults are too far gone so there is still hope for humanity if you reach them early enough.
If you released this one scene, building, dawkins, as a standalone FPS for Dreamcast 2 they wouldn't stop playing till xmas 2025 and spend £300, Bz crack knuckles.
Release it on Xbox 2001 dvd imo. Just a black / grey disc with Dawkins Lecture as title, and the old xbox hl2 menu.
wow, dawkins never even left the arm chair!
david johanson isn't he buster pointdexter it is hot hot hot it like 80 at 3am (78.5 actually was 80 at midnight ) Pressure 30.06 in
Visibility 10.0 miles
Clouds Clear
Heat Index 82 °F
Dew Point 73 °F
Humidity 85%
Rainfall 0.00 in
Why is the MC dressed like he’s going to pull a rabbit out of a hat?
For an atheist, I wish Dawk could talk about science without mentioning religion
its what he does.
you should listen to someone else if you dont want to listen about religion
I agree, he's obsessed about religion and it distracts from the science and I find it infuriating because I really do love this man but goddamn, I just want to hear him go DEEP on the science without being distracted by theology
@@yanquiufo7113 you mean dolt Dawkins knows 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/
Maybe it's because religious fools deny his lifes work a passion and stop his main love of a true open education system.
@@jameswright... Nah, he's just a straight white professional man. It's a power thing
Intellectually entertaining. Words are cut exacting to the meaning delivered poetically. thanks and keep up with the good work professor Dawkins. From HK
Dawkins is a Natural Born Idiot. He is Recycling old fashioned pseudoarguments from the past. His intellectual Niveau is extremelx low. You must be utterly naive to take such a guy seriously.
The Connoisseur only natural born idiot here and troll on top of that are you. You paste same nonsense beneath each post like broken record. You are an idiot!
Ed, he's a dolt.
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/
If _"coins"_ and _"toast"_ at 21:26 _"know nothing about your desire"_ then on what basis do atoms and molecules *know how to write a book* as evolution demands..?
@ Mike Bellamy
The problem may be that you don't actually know what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection actually is. Atoms and molecules don't "know" anything, let alone how to write a book, even speaking metaphorically. I see that you also believe that "evolution....has been falsified", but even if it had, how would you know?
Can I recommend that you watch Daniel Dennett's lecture (several versions on Utube) on "Darwin's Strange Inversion of Reason", which explains how simple non-thinking entities evolve into more complex things? It's not hard to follow.
@@MrDorbel I have listened/watched Dennett, Dawkins, Kraus, Harris and anyone else you would like post.. They are arguing philosophy not science.. I know evolution has been falsified because I discovered a "number" new to thermodynamics which applies to the second law and answers the final fall back position of secular science "you can't prove its not possible" well I have solved that: I don't have to prove its not possible I only have to prove it violates the second law of thermodynamics.. Done paper in progress of being written. QED.
@@mikebellamy Science does not ever say, "You can't prove it's not possible"! What it says to new ideas is, "Show me that this is possible and a necessary and sufficient explanation of reality".
I look forward to your paper!
@@mikebellamy We are biological beings trying to figure out our environment. You don't see the forest for the trees.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Have you refuted this research? Of course not.
"I know evolution has been falsified because I discovered a "number" new to thermodynamics which applies to the second law and answers the final fall back position of secular science"
That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. You don't even grasp the basics of science, yet I'm to believe you falsified evolution with something that has nothing to do with it? The earth gets new energy on a daily basis from the sun, which fuels all thermodynamic processes on earth, so your silly 2nd law argument is laughably bad. Entropy doesn't become an issue for complex life until the sun runs out of energy.
Another scientific illiterate dispatched.
They don't know . They just do .
216 views wtf =) thanks for the upload
Science has its own rituals...peer review, research methods...conference lunches...
Richard Dawkins has an incredible mind. And his lectures are spell binding.
Because you're stooo-pid 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.
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/
Not being a scientist a couple questions I would ask is : Are there more Eisenstein's now then 50 or 100 years ago? Or why haven't we evolved our way out of religion? I would say we are gaining ground when it comes to religion but it's taking too long.
it is nice to skip those introductions
Anybody else think the opening kid sounded like Obama?
I was convinced that those of the scholars who have tried to bring about compatibility were at fault.
Nonsemse
@@ApothecaryGrant
Nonsense! Theory of evolution is nonsense.
Yeah, compatibilism is a farce
just jump to 9 min
9:43
" God creating man from the dust of the earth" (abiogenesis) is for science to articulate -eventually! Why and for what purpose is far, far more important than trying to justify the male ego's lust for power, domination and moral autonomy. As Jean Paul Sartre profanely declared "if God exists I am not free. Since I am free therefore God does not exist." As Pascal observed "some people believe whatever they want, not on the basis of evidence but what they find attractive" And there's something very attractive apparently, about a morality that is merely a spinoff from socio-biological evolution.
Sartre and Pascal were brainwashed religious morons, they had NO idea what atheists mean.
25m0s Unfortunately, mathematicians can much more succinctly explain the fallacies people make in computing probability of the next event happening than Dr Dawkins does struggling verbosely to express Bayes' Theorem.
This is who should be our Neil D. Tyson, Mitiu Kaku? And those other frauds. He speaks truth, Cheers to the Truth!
“Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’
Dolt Dawkins needs a LOT of miracles.
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/
Iredia UyiEvidence against evolution1) Species are generally observed remaining the same over time with relatively little amount of variation2) Random mutations have never been seen to build new genetic information3) There's nothing backing the assumption that similarities between different species proves common ancestry4) The fossil record only shows species that still exist or a viable species gone extinct. Never species with clear cut intermediate feature
1) Species are generally observed remaining the same over time with relatively little amount of variation
Species are observed to remain relatively the same- yes. But over longer time periods they change. Incidentally- speciation has been observed in our lifetime- so your claim isn't exactly true.
2) Random mutations have never been seen to build new genetic information.
Not true. Random mutations have indeed been shown to build new genetic information. A quick google search will provide you with lists.
3) There's nothing backing the assumption that similarities between different species proves common ancestry.
I assume you mean the simple act of just comparing genomes. In fact that is wrong- but when added to say comparing older genomes, or tracing ERV histories across a number of related species and then cross checking against the fossil record- well that's a different matter.
4) The fossil record only shows species that still exist or a viable
species gone extinct. Never species with clear cut intermediate feature
That one is an outright lie. Sorry. I don't know if it is your or you simply parrotted it. But in fact the lists of transitional forms across genus and clade and species is rather huge.
***** 1) There's no good evidence showing that species change over deep time. In fact, there are living fossils of species which still exist today. They remain unchanged. 2) I have actually gone over some supposed examples of random mutations building new genetic information and find nothing convincing. But even supposing it were true (it's not) that random mutations does build new genetic information this doesn't mean it's a viable source of building ever-increasing complexity. One problem is that whatever random mutations does it can easily undo precisely because it is random. Another problem is that mutations are constrained in where they can occur. Some portions of the genome mutate more than the other. Some portions can't tolerate even a single mutation. Many genetic disorders attest to this. There's also Hox genes responsible for coding the body plan of an organism which are highly conserved
3) Oh no, not the simple act of comparing genomes. Evolutionists commonly presume that similarities among different species show that they come from a common ancestor. So in comparative genomics finding out similar gesnes in different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. Or in embryology similarity in ontogeny proves common descent. Then in comparative anatomy similarity in morphology is evidrnce of common descent. But there's nothing that supports this assumption. In other words, there's no reason to believe that just because one finds shares characteristics across different species therefore one must infer common descent. 4) It's not a lie but I'll let you have your way with this one.
Iredia Uyi
1) Extant species similar to ancient forms is not evidence against evolution. Evolution is adaption to environment. If a species is well adapted- it won't change.
2) Random mutation is not the only driver in evolution. Natural Selection (and a few other minor drivers) take over and the random element is gone. If a mutation is beneficial in some way it is likely to be passed on. If it achieves population density then evolution progresses. The Caucasian adaption for dairy consumption is an example. as is the lighter colour skin which increases Vit D processing in cooler/ cloudier climates. Those adaptions happened as humans moved North.
HoX gene switches in insects have been turned on and off and shown to cause antennae to become limbs. HoX genes in mutation and epigenetic action are part of the morphological changes in animals.
3) Or ERV histories which coincide with the fossil record to match family trees of species and clades.
***** 1) This is nonsense because all species that evolved over time where already well adapted to their environment. For example, evolution teaches that fishes evolved over time to become amphibians but fishes were already well adapted to their aquatic environment. Evolution is not adaptation to environment, it is the change in the heritable traits of a species over time. Again the fact of old fossils of species that exist unchanged today contradicts evolution. 2) This doesn't help for two reasons. One, random mutations tend to destroy and degade more than they build; it is a FACT that beneficial mutations are rare therefore it is an error in logic to presume that they can build the ever increasing complexity required for change in a species over time. No one will allow thselves get bathed in mutagen s or X-rays so they randomly mutate more so they can evolve better features and the reason is simple random mutations destroy.more than it builds. Look at Chernobyl for example. Lots of random mutation from the radioactive explosion that happened there. It caused lots of genetic disorders aborted fetuses, freak babies etc. Two, natural selection can and does allow a beneficial mutation thrive, but the extent to which it can do this is limited. It is limited by the fact of genetic drift whereby a species can die by chance without respect to their level of adaptation. Even the fittest may not get to pass on their genes. Or the unfit may get to pass on their genes. Look at Stephen Hawkings, brilliant man no doubt but quite unfit from an evolutionary perspective and yet he still has kids. This brings me to my second point, that in sexual organisms such evolution is limited since only germline mutations can be passed on.Therefore an organism might have a beneficial mutation but because it didn't happen in its gamete this beneficial mutation doesn't get passed on. And that is
why Hawking's can still give birth to fit children although his survival is handicapped. That said your point on Hox genes is moot. Hox genes are very sensitive to mutations. Even in your example a mutation in the Hox gene caused an organ to grow in the wrong place. Besides they are similar across vast species so they don't change. Now after alll I've said I would be surprised if you still believe that random mutation is a good means of getting functional new genetic information. 3) My claim is that there is.nothing supporting the asption that similarities across different species shows common ancestry between them. Try refuting it.
Iredia Uyi
1) Wrong. The environment is in constant change. Small changes in a major environmental force can cause significant changes in local ones. Fish and other aquatic creatures are very susceptible to those changes. Changes in nutrient level, salinity, temperature and any other number of shifts change aquatic environments. But since the tectonic plates have been ever in motion, other factors play a part. The Ring of Fire off the West Coast of the USA should give you another clue as to how this happens.
2) Also wrong. The majority of mutations tend to be benign. Most humans carry around 80 of them. Some are harmful, some are beneficial. Whether a mutation is beneficial can be related to environment. Evolution is only interested in reproduction. So someone like Hawking can pass on the genes for a disease- but as long as the offspring survive long enough and do pass on their genetic material- then the job is done. After that it matters not.
3) One such refutation is found in ERV insertions. Creationist sites have been in a panic since this one surfaced and they have tried without effect to claim it doesn't matter. It does. The best they get to do is claim the ERV's are something else. A spurious nonsense.
If an ancestor individual is infected by an ERV the ERV leaves a genetic marker randomly in the chromosone. The randomness is of note here cos that makes it easy to identify in descendant species. Anything with that same marker in the same place is descended from that individual.
Where a species divides the ERV is in both.
Where another branch species also gets an ERV insertion, then we can identify now its ancestry and its descendants- AND we can note its relationship to the related but uninfected species.
This can be traced over and over again through more and more species over the millenia.
And we have done this with many.
The usual response I get to this is denial that they are ERV's or some daft lecture on ERV's (usually lifted from a creationist site) with no actual argument- just avoidance.
Would Mr. Dawkins please explain what a good person is.
Charles Trigilio that's completely subjective but a good man to me is someone who does the right thing even when no one's around
Charles Trigilio
You wouldn't know if he told you, shithead.
At what point, even before evolution, even before the first molecule, did the journey towards consciousness begin?
Even more fascinating than the question of ‘how’ is question of ‘why’?
Did it fulfill some destiny of existence or was it just the hundred monkeys typing away, that got lucky and produced a meaningless Universe?
The road is always waiting….
Consciousness only comes with life, with that Consciousness arrives only when the 1st life begins, here in earth 3.6 ish billion years ago but who knows if it started else where before that.
Consciousness doesn't start pre life, it emerged with life.
More a case of all the ingredients were there from the bang was just a case of time before the right combination mixes and more time after that.
Are these Levite scientists, at Tel Aviv University?
"Wasting goats" 😂😂😂
Take A Moment
Professor Dawkins
You are on the heads of genius.
Thank you for your work. A Great Ape, one of the best.
Stay Safe and
Stay Free 🌐
Is there anyone following in his footsteps? Hopefully he's inspired hundreds of young folks to do just that.
Yes but he is the most reknown
was the male and female human produced at the same time? or was one sex produced way before the other sext was produced?
It evolved slowly.
How to know and understand the best of bio-logical dynamical information distribution and assembly, is to hear a reasonably domesticated, scientifically researched theory, ie a refined, orderly and categorical interpretation of the chaotic observations of theologians. If there's order in the Universe, it has to be assessed by expertise of Professor Dawkins standard, and fitted to Cosmology, also in reasonable and rational proportions of repeatable, reiterative methodology.
(Ie Take no one's word for it, recalculate from first principles)
Dawkins is a Natural Born Idiot. He is Recycling old fashioned pseudoarguments from the past. His intellectual Niveau is extremelx low. You must be utterly naive to take such a guy seriously.
Dear friend, you must be very , very naive to appreciate the old fashioned dogmatism of this physically and intellectually smallgrown guy. At the beginning of the 21th century we don't need stupid fundamentalisms of any kind. We have intellectually grown up und and our worldview is both structured by scientific knowledge and openness to the the questions, that no human being will ever be able to answer. The stuff by D, is on a similar intellectual level as say scientology or the catechism of the catholic church or the theories of creationists. But this is simply not good enough and we must not settle for that. So, forget about this shabby little guru and start thinking yourself and informing yourself on the basis of real scientific textbooks. Good luck.Mehr anzeigen
I love it
Is it wrong to keep finding different ways to look at things? Does it show intelligence, or stupidity?
The problem with religions is that science cannot disprove God or any other deity, just like it cannot disprove the existence of Santa or flying unicorns. It is then incumbent on religion to provide a clear and convincing evidence to anything it claims. Religions started since the dawn of humanity and it is conceivable to attribute lots of unexplainable things in nature to a God back then, and since humans tend to follow their societies in a herd manner, religions still exist till today.
people need too learn how too ask questions cuz that was annoying too listen too