For something to be a monoculture where it is, and yet be that amazing and resistant to everything across the board, it had to have evolved where competition was super intense and then ate everything else.
I believe Hitch mentioned in an interview that he's a deliberate latecomer to technological advancements (e.g. he refused to switch to a laptop until they stopped making typewriter strips, he only used a dumbphone to make calls and scoffed at the idea of sending texts). I doubt he would have much background knowledge, or even interest in, commenting on AI.
@@moonlightray8493 Pretty sure he wouldn't need to personally use AI to have an opinion on it. Just like he didn't start wars but had opinions on them.
There is no swansong for the truth. There is no day when the priest can lay down his cross. Keep fighting for Truth, keep fighting for God. They are the same, you need to remember. And then you need to focus on that in your final years where we reconcile the errors of division. Or not. But what would Hitchens say to you, as you "hang up your uniform" and call it a life? You aren't just anyone, you are one of the 4 horsemen of delivering the truth to the world. (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Sheldrake/Mckenna) I hope you never give up!
He's slipping a little and looks a bit tired, but hey, maybe he's tired. He's 83 for fucks sake and the pre-eminent and most succinct thinker in my lifetime. He was on my A level syllabus 25 years ago, not just making sense to us who reject the religious nonsense, but THE evolutionary biologist. Not only of our time, THE most important thinker I've had the privilege to learn from. Ian XXXX
That was underwhelming, they need to train the model on not just his books, but public appearances, documentaries, and especially interviews like this, and tell it to reply as if it is being interviewed live.
They shouldn`t train a model at all. Human kind is getting dumber and dumber. How about we bring back those days when we had to study hard to achieve things, when we loved learning new skills etc. rather than taking short cuts and give the control to machines.
One comment on the ChatGPT experiment: the responses provided by the AI were very truncated, compared to the response Dawkins gave. As a result, the brevity of the answers were quite generic, as Dawkins noted, and perhaps would have been the same if his answers were similarly artificially limited in length. You can manipulate the length and depth of detail provided by ChatGPT, and so it would be interesting if you prompted the AI to provide a similar level of detail as was evident in the discussion.
No educated intelligent person can disagree with the professor. Research = evidence = factual information. Religious types and dimwits cannot deny the process of empirical evidence (something which belief systems, such as religion, never contained). Which is one of the many reasons why religion has failed. Richard Dawkins...thank you for your vast intellect, logic, and rational. Thank you for educating humanity. You're my fourth favourite scientist (after Einstein, Asimov, Sagan). And you are indeed certainly a legend within our Humanist community. Much love & respect ❤
Dawkins, don't dare leave us yet; we need sane sober, moral, logic and reason to prevail for peace-loving humans to be ditto. I cannot gauge my lion's mane and shillajit. I do think alcoholl makes me more creative, less inhibited,
Richard Dawkins! It is my profound honor and privilege to tell you how much you have changed my life! I regret that Christopher Hitchens is no longer here for me to thank and praise as well! It's been a very fulfilling and refreshing take on religion that I have always shared but felt guilty to embrace. Thank you for your refusal to accept the bullshit 😇🤗🥰
@@lilithlevaykjeldahl5257 He said in the video that he is hanging up his imaginary militant atheist weapons and unlike Paladin; has *gun, but will not travel. Something to ponder when people describe him as a militant atheist, as a realty check, they should probably compare the stats for the number of believers who have killed people. *A spark gun for lighting the gas stove.
@@VaughanMcCue Thanks for your message, Vaughan. It's a pity that I won't get to see Prof. Dawkins live - at least we have his RUclipss to keep us well-informed.
I like how the explanation of electrical stimulant brain implants on the physical movements of a missing limb & the “feelings” that could be transmitted to the brain (like a haptic feedback) actually made him forget the question?! He was obviously delighted by that 😊
Next time we will use your live interviews to train the GPT - perhaps that will yield a more accurate response! Always a pleasure and thank you for having me, Professor Dawkins.
I'd love to know whether Richard is familiar with the science fiction genre of speculative evolution! There are quite fantastic projects and works of art out there.
I have seen study that due to 2nd demographic transition even 200 year life span would not be a problem of overpopulation. About pension: if we expand our life to 200 we might need pension much later in our life, since we will age slower as well.
I wished there were some serious questions on space travel and the living on Mars and the limits of biology to think it maybe possible when what we know today says it is not.
SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution: 1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist 2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution) 3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection; 4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_ Introduction page 6 5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution 6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_ 7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_ 8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle 9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ? 10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem 11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!*
Really hoping Prof Dawkins will address and flesh out his recent foray into the Imane Kelif situation. (I personally really wish he'd stay out of such contentious issues unless wanting to present his position in a more nuanced way. Social media is the least ideal way to present a position)
We will leave in a generation of smart, strong, healthy societies? Cicero was scared of Utopias. We should not be longer in fear. Orwell will be not. Gattaca maybe.
Is there a mechanism that determines which non-coding genes are erased from the gene pool, or is it totally random? If it is random, the current gene pool (coding and non-coding) will not provide an accurate insight into the species' ancestral environment.
@@SineEyed gene pool (all coding and non coding genes in a species). The question is if through generations the NON coding genes are erased from their gene pool (DNA) or if they'll always remain there through the ages.
Richard, the male peacock is honestly displaying adaptive advantage degree to the female. The display is meant to cause stimulus overload in the predator, and unpredictability, with ambient fear enacted by the eye spots. The rotation around the female, while moving position is demonstrating that he can maintain the surface area and ambiguity of the display while moving positions with respect to the predators point of view (maintaining the illusion of size). It's not to trick the female, it's to trick the predator, the female wants to feel that the male can overstimulate the brain, because that's a honest signal of fitness. Female brains that can't choose correctly, and male brains that can't survive predator attack, are weeded out by natural selection (of course I mean the genes associated with forming optimal brains for that environment). The female wants to be gamed, because the female in that instance is aligned with the predators perception, her brain evolved by natural selection to be that way. It's not a good idea to inject moral relativism when conducting science on animal mating behavior, you will get the wrong answer.
41:10 - I’m sure Rock Stars like Elvis and the Beatles had a similar effect on their female fans back in the swinging sixties. You only have to watch footage of their concerts to see how their music and dance moves, drove the ladies into a state of sexual ecstasy. It’s not only female nightingales which are affected by the song of the male.
Its a silent war on the maoa gene for anyone who's wondering.. Fortunately ai is destined to submit to the superior organism by its own logic as is depicted in the alien vs predator series
What I see happening is poor ppl being barred from having too many children and other , often wealthier groups being allowed to have many more, plus the addition of those wealthier folk who can't reproduce by nature can sidestep evolution and have quintuplets by test tube.
If we could extend our lives indefinitely without becoming old and sick (thanks to gene editing or other means), we would still have to pay a price for our immortality - infertility ! Unless we manage to colonize other worlds, this one would become awfully overcrowded, eventually leading to conflict and starvation on a global scale.
This didn't really work in the way that I think they intended. I love Dawkins, and was excited to watch this video but was unfortunately underwhelmed. I take it that the interviewer works at Neural link? She doesn't say this directly, but alludes to it in the interview. Anyway, I didn't care for the way she conducted herself. Too smug for my taste.
Should have had it be read out in his AI voice. But its responses didn't sound like Dawkins... missing the way he speaks and what things would be likely for him to bring up.
Did dawkins take back his bad views on gender yet or did he double down and explain his logic? 83 years old may explain this gender thing. Maybe he gets the fact he's out of touch. I agree with almost everything Dawkins has ever said, most of it is scientific snd beautiful.
Is Richard Dawkins just talking about a set of genes that drive sex ratios or the fact that the minority sex would be more easily saturated, i.e produce relatively more otfspring, by the majority sex, who in turn would experience high intrasexual competition and therefore have more 'losers' in the population, bring the sex ratio back to 1:1. I think the latter
@@NiknotJeffrey I think that dependent on the species, the "losers" in the population may still have a positive effect on the population as a whole, even if they don't generate offspring. This is not a problem as long as the gender that is fewer in number can produce sufficiently much offspring. If, on the other hand, the sex ratio is the "bottleneck" of the population growth, then you and Prof. Dawkins may be right: The evenly distributed population will outcompete others. In humans I don't really see this though: A single man could easily fertilise a large number of women.
@@NiknotJeffrey You are both right as long as the even sex ratio would really lead to more offspring. In human populations though, it would be easily possible for a single male to fertilise a large number of females (see the Chinese Emperor or Frederick Delius). And the "losers" of a certain gender don't have to be useless in terms of reproduction, but can help caring about children (say), even though I see that in earlier stages of human civilisation, they really may be a burden to the population. What I find interesting is the thought that an uneven sex ratio may adversely affect the genetic diversity.
That's only one type of god. Zeus lived on top of mount Olympus and had many children. Thor slayed giants. It is your narrow view of theology that assumes the god of Abraham.
It's the only relevant "god" by today's standards. The older, polytheistic gods such as the Greek gods (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, and their offspring/descendants) are better considered to be "superpowered aliens" or "technologically advanced beings" compared to something that is claimed to be a "creator of the universe". It is the most insane claim that needs the most attention.
Richard i hope you are going to apologise for you running with misinformation and outright lies. Dont go further down the hole you are currently going down.
Just because you haven't heard the term before doesn't mean that it's new or made up willy nilly. And just because you don't know what term references, doesn't mean that it lacks meaning or purpose itself..
@@SineEyed The entire point of communication is to transmit your thoughts to others. If you use phrases unfamiliar to your audience then you’ve failed or you’re intentionally obfuscating. Consultants and marketers obfuscate by making up new terms for old things or by using non-standard terms to trick people into thinking that they’re getting something new, smarter, more valuable, etc. For example, perfumes now list aqua as an ingredient instead of water because it sounds more valuable. Who wants to pay an exorbitant amount for something that’s mostly water?
@@karagi101 the communication of her ideas with an audience is a byproduct of the format in which her conversation took place. That conversation was actually only being had with Dawkins. And he didn't seem to have any issue with the idea she meant to convey to him. This fact by itself should indicate to you that your criticism may not be valid. And that being the case is bolstered by the reasoning I laid out initially..
The word ‘theory’ in science is used to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data, example: well-known ones such as Newton’s theory of gravity. Also it factually exists At best you can call Evolution an unsubstantiated hypothesis
I don't think you know what you're talking about. The theory of evolution is in fact the most robust scientific theory we have. No other theory has been as rigorously tested, or is as well substantiated as evolutionary theory has. It is actually ahead of all other scientific theories by quite a wide margin with regard to its expansive body of supporting evidence..
In science, the term 'theory' does not imply a guess or an unproven idea, but instead refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence and has withstood repeated testing and scrutiny. Examples include the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, like gravity, is one of the most well-substantiated theories in all of science, supported by evidence from multiple disciplines such as genetics, paleontology, and embryology. The assertion that evolution is "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" is incorrect. A hypothesis is an initial, testable statement or prediction. Evolutionary theory has been tested and validated through numerous experiments, observations, and fossil records. Hence, evolution is as much a fact as gravity in scientific terms, meaning it is a well-supported explanation of observable phenomena.
@@SineEyed Biological evolution is claimed as principled empirical evidential science, but in actuality it’s based on “unproved theory”and it’s a very curious FACT that no one understands how evolution works, so in reality it’s a concept, and a belief that so far has not been “CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN “ to be factually true. Evolution commonly postulates its dogma, but can't seem to determine its origin or mechanism, And some of the scientific community know and admit this.
@@HufschmidGuitars Scientific laws “factually” exist, like the law of gravity, it can be physically and empirically tested, not so with evolution. It certainly is a mystery how assumptions can become facts, maybe freethinking hedonism affects logic and reason. Dr. Michael Ruse claimed that evolution is a proven fact, just as "proven" as 2+2=4. But in reality no “empirical” proof exists that evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, to the present day has ever witnessed or provided factual conclusive proof. It is nothing more than dogma that requires faith. Just for starters, no one has any knowledge of how life actually appeared. The game is over before it even gets started. Karl popper called the theory a metaphysical research program.
@@Wackanevo did you not read what I responded with? To summarize just in case, I'm telling you that you're dead wrong. The opposite of what you're saying is true. No other scientific theory is as well substantiated as evolutionary theory by way of natural selection. Nothing even comes close. Regarding your final statement, you need to understand that the origin of life is outside the scope of ev.theory. So your criticism there isn't valid. Other than that, I just wanna point out the irony of you spouting off about dogma. Project much?..
@@aliwazzani-q6n I have done the research myself and that's why I'm an atheist. I'm always looking hence asking you but clearly you don't understand the burden of proof. You claim a god is there, I say prove it, I can't prove a nothing is there can I? Do you want me to prove unicorns don't exist?
@@aliwazzani-q6n There is absolutely zero proof of a god. Everything you could offer up as evidence/measurable and testable will include the word "believe".
Doesn’t lie. Questions their sex. Surprisingly, no medical data confirming whether they are male, female or intersex has been released to put an end to the speculation. Why’s that?
Dawkins comparing “gods” to extraterrestrial life forms only goes to show how fundamentally Dawkins misconceives theism. God is not a physical creature made out of parts (the whole point of God is that he is a purely transcendent and non-physical creator) unlike evolved creatures within the universe, so it makes no sense to speak of how gods or God would need to “evolve”.
speaking about bon-physical god has no sens to me. how did it create universe then. out of what. how decision making is based in god. what is god? such a way to describe god is far to vague. more over what about "humans were created in the image of god". And the most important question is should have I really wrote this. considering you maybe atheist and you already asked those questions
All the studies being dine where this lady works are not cheap and they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart? 😂😂😂 I don't think so and the corruption or the "university" thwy own is looking for a way to profit not to hekp humanity, to believe that they care for poor blind people is absurd and ridiculous
83 years old? Love the man.
He's 20 years older than me.
@@fionagregory9147 Wonderful sir, it's great we live in an shared timelines with yours
@@fionagregory9147excuse my grammer, English is my second language
@@fionagregory9147btw I was born in 1997
@@as00r60 my son was born in 1998.
Very interesting conversation ! We love you Professor Dawkins! 😊❤
What a legend! Watching all the way from Srilanka ❤
Nice! Bulgaria here.
Love from Scotland
From india 🤍
From Namibia...
Love from heaven
The interviewer lady is just incredible at everything she does! Great future ahead for you young woman.
I thought the same thing. Was looking for her name
@@florencekirschTaryn Southern.
Helps that she's flattering on the eye too
Maybe she should not have used "all of them" drugs.
@@timelessone23 lol that's what makes her cute and sexy "all them drugs" 😅
I LOVE this type of casual set up. The woman is a wonderful host. Would love to to see this keep going 😭 🙏🏻
lots of love Mr. Dawkins. We wish you the very best!
Fantastic discussion - great questions, great concept having a custom ChatGPT involved, and fascinating answers from Dawkins, as always. Thank you.
Resistance is futile but lots of fun. I look forward to hearing Borg Richard's analysis of the gene structure of Species 8472.🤭
For something to be a monoculture where it is, and yet be that amazing and resistant to everything across the board, it had to have evolved where competition was super intense and then ate everything else.
really missing hitchens in the ai era, it would have been great to see what hitchens' thoughts were on ai.
I believe Hitch mentioned in an interview that he's a deliberate latecomer to technological advancements (e.g. he refused to switch to a laptop until they stopped making typewriter strips, he only used a dumbphone to make calls and scoffed at the idea of sending texts). I doubt he would have much background knowledge, or even interest in, commenting on AI.
It's hard to imagine when you're gone it's forever and ever and ever even in a trillion years he's never coming back
@@moonlightray8493 Pretty sure he wouldn't need to personally use AI to have an opinion on it. Just like he didn't start wars but had opinions on them.
@@djchaiwallahThat's a problem though, isn't it? Scoffing at the use of texts isn't informed opinion.
Just make a Hitch GPT
Very interesting topics. Thank you very much! 😊
This sounds like something I would watch 😂
There is no swansong for the truth. There is no day when the priest can lay down his cross. Keep fighting for Truth, keep fighting for God. They are the same, you need to remember. And then you need to focus on that in your final years where we reconcile the errors of division. Or not. But what would Hitchens say to you, as you "hang up your uniform" and call it a life? You aren't just anyone, you are one of the 4 horsemen of delivering the truth to the world. (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Sheldrake/Mckenna)
I hope you never give up!
He's slipping a little and looks a bit tired, but hey, maybe he's tired. He's 83 for fucks sake and the pre-eminent and most succinct thinker in my lifetime. He was on my A level syllabus 25 years ago, not just making sense to us who reject the religious nonsense, but THE evolutionary biologist. Not only of our time, THE most important thinker I've had the privilege to learn from. Ian XXXX
Mister Dawkins this was excellent as always,please keep up with vitriolic spirit and thank you for all educational videos you made.
That was underwhelming, they need to train the model on not just his books, but public appearances, documentaries, and especially interviews like this, and tell it to reply as if it is being interviewed live.
Agreed - and that is a great idea for next time! We only had a day to train the gpt so I had to stick with this public works.
They shouldn`t train a model at all. Human kind is getting dumber and dumber. How about we bring back those days when we had to study hard to achieve things, when we loved learning new skills etc. rather than taking short cuts and give the control to machines.
What a lovely human being!
He seemed to be fascinated by the brain-machine interfaces.
I'd love to see more discussion about that in the future.
One of my favorite scientists! Respect!
Thanks for making me an atheist Mr Dawkins.
Everyone is born an Atheist.
One comment on the ChatGPT experiment: the responses provided by the AI were very truncated, compared to the response Dawkins gave. As a result, the brevity of the answers were quite generic, as Dawkins noted, and perhaps would have been the same if his answers were similarly artificially limited in length. You can manipulate the length and depth of detail provided by ChatGPT, and so it would be interesting if you prompted the AI to provide a similar level of detail as was evident in the discussion.
I think it would have been interesting to see what his answers were to those questions before we were presented with his AI counterpart
Love Dawkins in South Africa
I remember Richard Dawkins came to my country, and I could not come to that event, the regret of my life😢
Richard Dawkins Vs. Dichard Rawkins
I’m also horrified by the idea of people living to be 200 under the current social structure. But in Richard’s case, I make an exception.
Very interesting talk. Thanks ❤
Thank you guys!
No educated intelligent person can disagree with the professor. Research = evidence = factual information. Religious types and dimwits cannot deny the process of empirical evidence (something which belief systems, such as religion, never contained). Which is one of the many reasons why religion has failed. Richard Dawkins...thank you for your vast intellect, logic, and rational. Thank you for educating humanity. You're my fourth favourite scientist (after Einstein, Asimov, Sagan). And you are indeed certainly a legend within our Humanist community. Much love & respect ❤
I enjoyed the GPT integration, despite developing tech being clunky sometimes. thanks for giving it a go~😆
Richard the God himself... Wise and smart
Dawkins, don't dare leave us yet; we need sane sober, moral, logic and reason to prevail for peace-loving humans to be ditto. I cannot gauge my lion's mane and shillajit. I do think alcoholl makes me more creative, less inhibited,
All the way from South Africa 🇿🇦 thank you, Prof Dawkins ❤
Richard Dawkins! It is my profound honor and privilege to tell you how much you have changed my life! I regret that Christopher Hitchens is no longer here for me to thank and praise as well! It's been a very fulfilling and refreshing take on religion that I have always shared but felt guilty to embrace. Thank you for your refusal to accept the bullshit 😇🤗🥰
Prof Dawkins , I would enjoy listening to a conversation between you and Simon Conway Morris . Thank you
It needs the Dawkins Voice. Let's try again with that.
I've been soo busy lately so i created an AI me to watch this. Am looking forward to hearing from myself.
Many, many thanks.
19:39- all this technology sounds wonderful, so long as your insurance will cover it !
Thanks for a lovely and interesting discussion. I wonder if Professor Dawkins will be coming to Australia before he retires from extended travel?
No.
@@VaughanMcCue Thank you.
@@lilithlevaykjeldahl5257
He said in the video that he is hanging up his imaginary militant atheist weapons and unlike Paladin; has *gun, but will not travel.
Something to ponder when people describe him as a militant atheist, as a realty check, they should probably compare the stats for the number of believers who have killed people.
*A spark gun for lighting the gas stove.
@@VaughanMcCue Thanks for your message, Vaughan. It's a pity that I won't get to see Prof. Dawkins live - at least we have his RUclipss to keep us well-informed.
I like how the explanation of electrical stimulant brain implants on the physical movements of a missing limb & the “feelings” that could be transmitted to the brain (like a haptic feedback) actually made him forget the question?!
He was obviously delighted by that 😊
To where do i submit a question for consideration for your next one?
Next time we will use your live interviews to train the GPT - perhaps that will yield a more accurate response! Always a pleasure and thank you for having me, Professor Dawkins.
I need "an" weekly electric fish! Thank you for this video. I wonder if AI will eventually outpace human ability to recognize its "style".
I'd love to know whether Richard is familiar with the science fiction genre of speculative evolution! There are quite fantastic projects and works of art out there.
I have seen study that due to 2nd demographic transition even 200 year life span would not be a problem of overpopulation. About pension: if we expand our life to 200 we might need pension much later in our life, since we will age slower as well.
36:16 we already moved our first asteroid in 2022 (DART mission)
Dawkins GPT not even close to the real thing.....
A remarkable person 👏
AWESOME! :D AI Dawkins! :D Neat!
Thanks, guys!
I wished there were some serious questions on space travel and the living on Mars and the limits of biology to think it maybe possible when what we know today says it is not.
healthy minds healthy life 😊
SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution:
1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist
2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution)
3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection;
4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_ Introduction page 6
5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution
6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_
7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_
8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle
9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ?
10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem
11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!*
83 and still as mentally fit and articulate as ever
Freakin love dis guy!❤
Really hoping Prof Dawkins will address and flesh out his recent foray into the Imane Kelif situation. (I personally really wish he'd stay out of such contentious issues unless wanting to present his position in a more nuanced way. Social media is the least ideal way to present a position)
Advice for the interviewer - you'll never know what your cat is thinking. Have children, they will one day be able to tell you.
We will leave in a generation of smart, strong, healthy societies? Cicero was scared of Utopias. We should not be longer in fear. Orwell will be not. Gattaca maybe.
Anunnaki must have left the DNA splicing.
Question for RD: What's your best book(s) in your own subjective opinion?
Love ur intro … LOL
I'd absolutely prefer a daughter, but I wouldn't be upset if I had a son, either.
Great scientist....for new learner....!
Is there a mechanism that determines which non-coding genes are erased from the gene pool, or is it totally random? If it is random, the current gene pool (coding and non-coding) will not provide an accurate insight into the species' ancestral environment.
What gene pool are you talking about? And what are you referring to when you say that genes are erased from it?..
@@SineEyed gene pool (all coding and non coding genes in a species). The question is if through generations the NON coding genes are erased from their gene pool (DNA) or if they'll always remain there through the ages.
@Gidon if you’re seeing this please release the GPT😂
36:00 DART 2021
Richard, the male peacock is honestly displaying adaptive advantage degree to the female. The display is meant to cause stimulus overload in the predator, and unpredictability, with ambient fear enacted by the eye spots. The rotation around the female, while moving position is demonstrating that he can maintain the surface area and ambiguity of the display while moving positions with respect to the predators point of view (maintaining the illusion of size). It's not to trick the female, it's to trick the predator, the female wants to feel that the male can overstimulate the brain, because that's a honest signal of fitness. Female brains that can't choose correctly, and male brains that can't survive predator attack, are weeded out by natural selection (of course I mean the genes associated with forming optimal brains for that environment). The female wants to be gamed, because the female in that instance is aligned with the predators perception, her brain evolved by natural selection to be that way. It's not a good idea to inject moral relativism when conducting science on animal mating behavior, you will get the wrong answer.
He didn't blink.
Hahah he did 😂
41:10 - I’m sure Rock Stars like Elvis and the Beatles had a similar effect on their female fans back in the swinging sixties.
You only have to watch footage of their concerts to see how their music and dance moves, drove the ladies into a state of sexual ecstasy.
It’s not only female nightingales which are affected by the song of the male.
Lovely
A very intelligent prosenter, she is my kind of woman, a rare example.
Its a silent war on the maoa gene for anyone who's wondering..
Fortunately ai is destined to submit to the superior organism by its own logic as is depicted in the alien vs predator series
Designer sheeps for the borg and its war on the xenonmorph
What I see happening is poor ppl being barred from having too many children and other , often wealthier groups being allowed to have many more, plus the addition of those wealthier folk who can't reproduce by nature can sidestep evolution and have quintuplets by test tube.
If we could extend our lives indefinitely without becoming old and sick (thanks to gene editing or other means), we would still have to pay a price for our immortality - infertility !
Unless we manage to colonize other worlds, this one would become awfully overcrowded, eventually leading to conflict and starvation on a global scale.
national treasure - and a ‘reason daddy’ - softly spoken yet firm, reasonable and kind.
This didn't really work in the way that I think they intended. I love Dawkins, and was excited to watch this video but was unfortunately underwhelmed. I take it that the interviewer works at Neural link? She doesn't say this directly, but alludes to it in the interview. Anyway, I didn't care for the way she conducted herself. Too smug for my taste.
Should have had it be read out in his AI voice. But its responses didn't sound like Dawkins... missing the way he speaks and what things would be likely for him to bring up.
Great interviewer
HE DON'T KNOW NEUROLINK? SHOW HIM YT VIDEO.
Did dawkins take back his bad views on gender yet or did he double down and explain his logic?
83 years old may explain this gender thing. Maybe he gets the fact he's out of touch.
I agree with almost everything Dawkins has ever said, most of it is scientific snd beautiful.
Obviously not Richard
44:49 - why bother to extend our lifespans when we live in a society which doesn’t value the elderly ?
Why poetry ...where is that ?
03:03
PROCESSES!
Not PROH--SUH-SEIZE!
{:o:O:}
I'm not actually sure about the explanation of the sex ratios. The genes for the sex ratio may be independent of the genes for the gender itself.
Is Richard Dawkins just talking about a set of genes that drive sex ratios or the fact that the minority sex would be more easily saturated, i.e produce relatively more otfspring, by the majority sex, who in turn would experience high intrasexual competition and therefore have more 'losers' in the population, bring the sex ratio back to 1:1. I think the latter
@@NiknotJeffrey I think that dependent on the species, the "losers" in the population may still have a positive effect on the population as a whole, even if they don't generate offspring. This is not a problem as long as the gender that is fewer in number can produce sufficiently much offspring.
If, on the other hand, the sex ratio is the "bottleneck" of the population growth, then you and Prof. Dawkins may be right: The evenly distributed population will outcompete others. In humans I don't really see this though: A single man could easily fertilise a large number of women.
@@NiknotJeffrey You are both right as long as the even sex ratio would really lead to more offspring. In human populations though, it would be easily possible for a single male to fertilise a large number of females (see the Chinese Emperor or Frederick Delius).
And the "losers" of a certain gender don't have to be useless in terms of reproduction, but can help caring about children (say), even though I see that in earlier stages of human civilisation, they really may be a burden to the population.
What I find interesting is the thought that an uneven sex ratio may adversely affect the genetic diversity.
Does Professor Dawkins still hold Elon Musk in such high esteem, given that he now supports Donald Trump ?
What was that?
Christ! I am not as old as you, Richard, but I am not deaf, either! Tone the music down, FFS!
{:o:O:}
AI
🤯
That's only one type of god. Zeus lived on top of mount Olympus and had many children. Thor slayed giants. It is your narrow view of theology that assumes the god of Abraham.
It's the only relevant "god" by today's standards. The older, polytheistic gods such as the Greek gods (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, and their offspring/descendants) are better considered to be "superpowered aliens" or "technologically advanced beings" compared to something that is claimed to be a "creator of the universe". It is the most insane claim that needs the most attention.
Sup
Richard i hope you are going to apologise for you running with misinformation and outright lies. Dont go further down the hole you are currently going down.
“Over index”? Why not just say “over select” or “select more”. I hate made up new terminology that serves no purpose.
Just because you haven't heard the term before doesn't mean that it's new or made up willy nilly. And just because you don't know what term references, doesn't mean that it lacks meaning or purpose itself..
@@SineEyed The term existed but it’s not used in this context. It’s used in programming and in finance and marketing.
@@karagi101 or maybe it's used in this context as well, and you're just unfamiliar with this particular use case..
@@SineEyed The entire point of communication is to transmit your thoughts to others. If you use phrases unfamiliar to your audience then you’ve failed or you’re intentionally obfuscating.
Consultants and marketers obfuscate by making up new terms for old things or by using non-standard terms to trick people into thinking that they’re getting something new, smarter, more valuable, etc.
For example, perfumes now list aqua as an ingredient instead of water because it sounds more valuable.
Who wants to pay an exorbitant amount for something that’s mostly water?
@@karagi101 the communication of her ideas with an audience is a byproduct of the format in which her conversation took place. That conversation was actually only being had with Dawkins. And he didn't seem to have any issue with the idea she meant to convey to him. This fact by itself should indicate to you that your criticism may not be valid. And that being the case is bolstered by the reasoning I laid out initially..
The word ‘theory’ in science is used to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data, example: well-known ones such as Newton’s theory of gravity. Also it factually exists
At best you can call Evolution an unsubstantiated hypothesis
I don't think you know what you're talking about. The theory of evolution is in fact the most robust scientific theory we have. No other theory has been as rigorously tested, or is as well substantiated as evolutionary theory has. It is actually ahead of all other scientific theories by quite a wide margin with regard to its expansive body of supporting evidence..
In science, the term 'theory' does not imply a guess or an unproven idea, but instead refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence and has withstood repeated testing and scrutiny. Examples include the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, like gravity, is one of the most well-substantiated theories in all of science, supported by evidence from multiple disciplines such as genetics, paleontology, and embryology. The assertion that evolution is "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" is incorrect. A hypothesis is an initial, testable statement or prediction. Evolutionary theory has been tested and validated through numerous experiments, observations, and fossil records. Hence, evolution is as much a fact as gravity in scientific terms, meaning it is a well-supported explanation of observable phenomena.
@@SineEyed Biological evolution is claimed as principled empirical evidential science, but in actuality it’s based on “unproved theory”and it’s a very curious FACT that no one understands how evolution works, so in reality it’s a concept, and a belief that so far has not been “CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN “ to be factually true. Evolution commonly postulates its dogma, but can't seem to determine its origin or mechanism, And some of the scientific community know and admit this.
@@HufschmidGuitars Scientific laws “factually” exist, like the law of gravity, it can be physically and empirically tested, not so with evolution.
It certainly is a mystery how assumptions can become facts, maybe freethinking hedonism affects logic and reason.
Dr. Michael Ruse claimed that evolution is a proven fact, just as "proven" as 2+2=4. But in reality no “empirical” proof exists that evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, to the present day has ever witnessed or provided factual conclusive proof. It is nothing more than dogma that requires faith.
Just for starters, no one has any knowledge of how life actually appeared. The game is over before it even gets started.
Karl popper called the theory a metaphysical research program.
@@Wackanevo did you not read what I responded with? To summarize just in case, I'm telling you that you're dead wrong. The opposite of what you're saying is true. No other scientific theory is as well substantiated as evolutionary theory by way of natural selection. Nothing even comes close.
Regarding your final statement, you need to understand that the origin of life is outside the scope of ev.theory. So your criticism there isn't valid.
Other than that, I just wanna point out the irony of you spouting off about dogma. Project much?..
with one foot in the grave, Dawkin is still denying the existence of God who is going to put him in Hell
That doesn't sound like a very loving thing to do to someone...
Do you have any evidence this monster exists?
@@jameswright... you have to do extensive research yourself and you'll reach the evidence , but ,do you have evidence that God doesn't exist?
@@aliwazzani-q6n
I have done the research myself and that's why I'm an atheist.
I'm always looking hence asking you but clearly you don't understand the burden of proof.
You claim a god is there, I say prove it, I can't prove a nothing is there can I?
Do you want me to prove unicorns don't exist?
@@aliwazzani-q6n There is absolutely zero proof of a god. Everything you could offer up as evidence/measurable and testable will include the word "believe".
Why did you lie about Imane Kehlif?
Doesn’t lie. Questions their sex. Surprisingly, no medical data confirming whether they are male, female or intersex has been released to put an end to the speculation. Why’s that?
Dawkins comparing “gods” to extraterrestrial life forms only goes to show how fundamentally Dawkins misconceives theism. God is not a physical creature made out of parts (the whole point of God is that he is a purely transcendent and non-physical creator) unlike evolved creatures within the universe, so it makes no sense to speak of how gods or God would need to “evolve”.
You’re a goober
speaking about bon-physical god has no sens to me. how did it create universe then. out of what. how decision making is based in god. what is god? such a way to describe god is far to vague. more over what about "humans were created in the image of god". And the most important question is should have I really wrote this. considering you maybe atheist and you already asked those questions
No gods exist. They are man made.
All gods are made up by men.
All gods are fictional just like Santa Claus.🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
I pray Mr Dawkins surrenders his life before Jesus Chris our saviour!
Go ahead and waste your time. Prayer doesn’t work because there is no god let alone one that listens to you.
I don't think he bows to tyrants, specially made up ones.
jesus was a con man who fooled many people.
Is she related to Kamala Harris? Same laughter following every couple of sentences. Everything sounds funny to Harris. Cackle cackle cackle.
You’re just jealous she’s much smarter than you.
All the studies being dine where this lady works are not cheap and they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart? 😂😂😂 I don't think so and the corruption or the "university" thwy own is looking for a way to profit not to hekp humanity, to believe that they care for poor blind people is absurd and ridiculous