I have heard it too many times. Religious folks like to quote evolution incorrectly, like here "it happened on accident", and then tell us "no no no, that can't be true". Well, evolution is (1) random mutation plus (2) natural selection over millions of years. Don't forget the second part, even if it is inconvenient.
Will you share a single example or natural selection or evolution where the next generation had a new gene, or was in fact a new kind of animal? The gene pool doesn't change between generations and mutations are quickly corrected. Adding millions of years times 0 new kinds still equals 0. This is something people assume but hasn't been proven. What should be upsetting is the frequency in which scientists make false claims and how long it takes to get them removed from the indoctrination system. I believe in evolution for a long time until I started asking questions. I discovered Satan before God. Maybe start there. He's the great deceiver after all.
Also, study the various religions, you will quickly find they have all been corrupted by satan/zues/ra/etc. This is a game and you can start to unlock reality when you stop believing everything an authority figure tells you to read. Learn the logical fallacies and you'll find your "science" is a religion and you're very indoctrinated. I was, I sincerely hope you apply critical reasoning to your current beliefs and wake up to the great deception 🎉
5:02 We understand more about the origins of life than often assumed, and experiments have shown that simple molecules can self-organize by following chemical gradients, similar to “seeking food.” For example, in environments like hydrothermal vents, molecules reacted and aligned in ways that reduce entropy, gradually forming complex structures like RNA and primitive membranes. These molecules, influenced by natural energy sources (like heat and chemical reactions), could spontaneously arrange into stable patterns that eventually led to proto-cells-self-contained structures capable of basic metabolic processes.
@@NoName-cx3gk there are a lot of claims here, things that could happen. Do we have any evidence of these things happening in nature or a controlled environment?
What is the simplest cell made of? And all of that is run by a program called DNA. You are suggesting self replicating computers came into existence with the proper code to self replicate and correct for errors without a programmer or designer. Will you share an experiment where DNA is created from any other soup than Alphabets and where any of the components of a cell can come from earth/dirt/rocks/gas/lightning/fire? I'm not even asking for a single cell, just one of the components of the cell. I'd also like to hear a theory for how the cell was programmed if you know of one. Thanks
Dr. Tour critiques parts of abiogenesis, not Darwinian evolution itself. Evolution’s foundation is strong, supported by examples like antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the fossil record, and shared DNA sequences between species. These are all clear evidence of natural selection at work, showing that while details may evolve, the core theory remains solid.
@@IndieThinker Attempting to "destroy" Darwin doesn’t make much sense, as evolution is more than just a theory-it's an observable process. We can even run simulations that model evolutionary principles, and they consistently work, demonstrating that evolution acts like an optimization algorithm. It drives species toward a local maximum of adaptation, which changes over time due to environmental factors and internal mechanisms like sexual selection. These mechanisms, which can evolve randomly, reinforce that evolution is a flexible process, continuously optimizing life forms to fit changing conditions. Dismissing this process ignores how well-supported and dynamic it truly is.
@NoName-cx3gk the fossil record is circular reasoning. We only know how old rocks are by the fossils and only know how old fossils are by the rocks... Shared DNA is evidences of a creator, the same way every Windows program shares computer code. Evolution would be more believable IF organisms had 0% shared DNA, or other OS entirely. Art last man invented Windows, Linux and Apple.
@@NoName-cx3gkadditionally, we have never observed evolution. Mixing genes in a gene pool doesn't add new genes. Dogs are still dogs. We don't have an example of them evolving. Bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant isn't actually evolution, it's a mutated bacteria which LOST information and is consequently unaffected by bacteria, however it isn't beer or evolved, it in fact dies off quickly and is replaced by the healthy original. You know a lot from text books, but need to study who wrote them and their motivations. There is a lot of fakery.
So, Dawkins is actually making some contradictory arguments. He states, "so what if there is nothing but misery darkness and nothingness," inferring nothing happens after death, then back tracts to clarify "if it is true," which gives creedence to a possible afterlife. Makes the statement about the debatable historical reality of Jesus, and when called out, says it doesn't matter and is petty. Well Mr. Dawkins, if it is so petty and didn't matter, then why would you publish such a statement? He's not actually making an argument, but rather skating around it.
A ‘g’ designer has put a thought process into kick starting the universe by having many galaxies, billions of stars being created and imploding to have folk in his eyes landing on this planet and being centre stage. Just doesn’t add up on any level!
@@BewefauDawkins refuses to engage with the evidence for Christianity because he assumes it’s petty. He is objectively wrong on that front. This makes him a bad faith debater. You can’t engage meaningfully with a subject you don’t take seriously.
When he says, "if it is true," he's acknowledging the possibility of an afterlife, even if he doubts it. His comments on Jesus might just mean he sees the historical details as less important to his overall critique of religion’s influence.
@@IndieThinker Unlike a psychiatrist who must take everything seriously in a clinical setting, Dawkins is a biologist and philosopher, evaluating claims based on empirical evidence.
I have heard it too many times. Religious folks like to quote evolution incorrectly, like here "it happened on accident", and then tell us "no no no, that can't be true". Well, evolution is (1) random mutation plus (2) natural selection over millions of years. Don't forget the second part, even if it is inconvenient.
Will you share a single example or natural selection or evolution where the next generation had a new gene, or was in fact a new kind of animal?
The gene pool doesn't change between generations and mutations are quickly corrected. Adding millions of years times 0 new kinds still equals 0. This is something people assume but hasn't been proven. What should be upsetting is the frequency in which scientists make false claims and how long it takes to get them removed from the indoctrination system. I believe in evolution for a long time until I started asking questions. I discovered Satan before God. Maybe start there. He's the great deceiver after all.
Also, study the various religions, you will quickly find they have all been corrupted by satan/zues/ra/etc. This is a game and you can start to unlock reality when you stop believing everything an authority figure tells you to read. Learn the logical fallacies and you'll find your "science" is a religion and you're very indoctrinated. I was, I sincerely hope you apply critical reasoning to your current beliefs and wake up to the great deception 🎉
5:02 We understand more about the origins of life than often assumed, and experiments have shown that simple molecules can self-organize by following chemical gradients, similar to “seeking food.” For example, in environments like hydrothermal vents, molecules reacted and aligned in ways that reduce entropy, gradually forming complex structures like RNA and primitive membranes. These molecules, influenced by natural energy sources (like heat and chemical reactions), could spontaneously arrange into stable patterns that eventually led to proto-cells-self-contained structures capable of basic metabolic processes.
@@NoName-cx3gk there are a lot of claims here, things that could happen. Do we have any evidence of these things happening in nature or a controlled environment?
What is the simplest cell made of? And all of that is run by a program called DNA. You are suggesting self replicating computers came into existence with the proper code to self replicate and correct for errors without a programmer or designer.
Will you share an experiment where DNA is created from any other soup than Alphabets and where any of the components of a cell can come from earth/dirt/rocks/gas/lightning/fire? I'm not even asking for a single cell, just one of the components of the cell.
I'd also like to hear a theory for how the cell was programmed if you know of one. Thanks
No he doesn't prove anything. Clickbait nonsense.
Do you follow Dr. Tour? Darwin's Theory is Swiss cheese now.
I do and I've discussed before on the show. There's a past episode with Stephen Meyer and others who destroyed Darwin on the channel.
Dr. Tour critiques parts of abiogenesis, not Darwinian evolution itself. Evolution’s foundation is strong, supported by examples like antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the fossil record, and shared DNA sequences between species. These are all clear evidence of natural selection at work, showing that while details may evolve, the core theory remains solid.
@@IndieThinker Attempting to "destroy" Darwin doesn’t make much sense, as evolution is more than just a theory-it's an observable process. We can even run simulations that model evolutionary principles, and they consistently work, demonstrating that evolution acts like an optimization algorithm. It drives species toward a local maximum of adaptation, which changes over time due to environmental factors and internal mechanisms like sexual selection. These mechanisms, which can evolve randomly, reinforce that evolution is a flexible process, continuously optimizing life forms to fit changing conditions. Dismissing this process ignores how well-supported and dynamic it truly is.
@NoName-cx3gk the fossil record is circular reasoning. We only know how old rocks are by the fossils and only know how old fossils are by the rocks...
Shared DNA is evidences of a creator, the same way every Windows program shares computer code. Evolution would be more believable IF organisms had 0% shared DNA, or other OS entirely. Art last man invented Windows, Linux and Apple.
@@NoName-cx3gkadditionally, we have never observed evolution. Mixing genes in a gene pool doesn't add new genes. Dogs are still dogs. We don't have an example of them evolving. Bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant isn't actually evolution, it's a mutated bacteria which LOST information and is consequently unaffected by bacteria, however it isn't beer or evolved, it in fact dies off quickly and is replaced by the healthy original.
You know a lot from text books, but need to study who wrote them and their motivations. There is a lot of fakery.
So, Dawkins is actually making some contradictory arguments.
He states, "so what if there is nothing but misery darkness and nothingness," inferring nothing happens after death, then back tracts to clarify "if it is true," which gives creedence to a possible afterlife.
Makes the statement about the debatable historical reality of Jesus, and when called out, says it doesn't matter and is petty. Well Mr. Dawkins, if it is so petty and didn't matter, then why would you publish such a statement?
He's not actually making an argument, but rather skating around it.
He can't prove that it doesn't exist and you can prove that it does. That's why.
A ‘g’ designer has put a thought process into kick starting the universe by having many galaxies, billions of stars being created and imploding to have folk in his eyes landing on this planet and being centre stage. Just doesn’t add up on any level!
@@BewefauDawkins refuses to engage with the evidence for Christianity because he assumes it’s petty. He is objectively wrong on that front. This makes him a bad faith debater. You can’t engage meaningfully with a subject you don’t take seriously.
When he says, "if it is true," he's acknowledging the possibility of an afterlife, even if he doubts it. His comments on Jesus might just mean he sees the historical details as less important to his overall critique of religion’s influence.
@@IndieThinker Unlike a psychiatrist who must take everything seriously in a clinical setting, Dawkins is a biologist and philosopher, evaluating claims based on empirical evidence.
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.
Good book for anyone in doubt. Written by a former atheist.
Great book. Really helped me deconvert from christianity.
@@void_ling Ah, this must be the really REALLY clever atheist channel. Good luck with that.
@@marko9912 You think i’m clever?
There is no god Richard is 100% correct