Richard Dawkins - Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 03. 2024
- Free access Closer to Truth's library of 5,000+ videos for free: bit.ly/376lkKN
Explore evolution-its scope and depth. How did life on Earth come to be as it is, and how did humans come to be as we are? What are the deep principles driving evolution? What are evolution’s challenges and open questions?
Watch more videos on the mystery of consciousness: shorturl.at/pzAW4
Support the show with Closer To Truth merch: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Richard Dawkins is one of the world’s most eminent writers and thinkers, and a major contributor to the public understanding of the science of evolution. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and a Fellow of the Royal Society and of the Royal Society of Literature.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast wherever you listen: shorturl.at/hwGP3
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Damn, what a set to film on 🔥
Fancy seeing you here😉
real
Finally got Richard Dawkins on the show
Extremely beautiful background!
This was filmed at the Oxford Natural History Museum; such a fun location 💫
@@CloserToTruthTV Thank you! I will forever follow this channel!
I dedicate this poem to Richard Dawkins.
The fish's tail,
bright vermillion;
Lures the female---
and the heron.
I have in mind Nothobranchius guentheri, Zanzibar.
My cats name is mittens.
A random fish
@@user-nb3mq3cg8k Not a random fish, Notho. guentheri, Zanzibar.
Greatest Exponent Sir Richard does beautifully and critically open up our minds to the molecular approach to the theory of evolution through natural selection...Really very Amazing...
The molecular approach to the "Fairy of Evolution" actually leads to evidence for a creative mind behind life. This is true whether looking at the protein synthesis level or the DNA coding systems that life is based on. The most revealing insight on the origin of the Language of Life is found in John 1 v 1-14. Nearly 2000 after these words were penned, scientific discovery points to its profound truth. Whatever discipline you follow you will eventually lead to evidence of our Creator. if you do not philosophically exclude it as Richard has done.
I LOVE this show, and the podcast is priceless. Never miss an episode. Thanks so much for your hard work!!! Huge fan.
thanks for that, didn't know it existed.
Its my favourite museum in London + B.museum (Aassyrian, Sumerian section especially ...)." Closer to truth" ,Dawkins Harris Chitchens- ma favourite.
First time I see Dawkins being interviewed here 😆
Well it’s been years since he actually did any hard science so it is not too surprising
Been actually waiting for this. Im glad he's here.
Richard Dawkins: As a biologist, there are two sexes and that's all there is to it.
It's absurd how a biologist can come to such a conclusion. A mixed-race person would understand how culture can decouple from biology. Guess why he can't...
@@dangerfly He is old. When a scientist is old, he cannot think that well, and cannot keep up with the progress of science.
That’s because he usually interviews smart people . Not atheists who don’t know anything about the Bible and miss quotes Dr Craig. Plus ignorance is one thing but ignorance and being pompous too is a bad combination.
Background was beautiful as others have said, but I found it and the camera movement unfortunately drawing my attention away from the conversation at times.
This looks like the Oxford Natural History Museum.
It's where the debate occurred with Bishop Wilberforce in 1860.
His nickname was Soapy Sam
architectural tangent... what an incredible building interior
I once attended a high tea at Teddy and he was the center of attention. I was in awe and doted, as did everyone else, on his every word.
I love Richard Dawkins!
Yes, I love Richard Dawkins too.
Richard Dawkins Dec 22nd 2006 "Maybe Burgess and Mcintosh are right and all the rest of us - biologists, geologists, archeologists, historians, chemists, physicists, cosmologists and, yes, thermodynamicists and respectable theologians, the vast majority of Nobel Prize winners, Fellows of the Royal Society and of the National Academies of the world are wrong. Not just slightly wrong but catastrophically, appallingly. devastatingly wrong. It is possible if Burgess and Mcintosh are right, the scientific establishment has fallen."
i remember reading my first book from him after deciding against Church and questioning my beliefs.. Unweaving the Rainbow.. changed my life, and gave me purpose when i felt my oncoming atheism was making me feel lost and scared to lose God.
@@dongshengdi773B&M, they found it ! I know someday it would be found, it was only a matter of time. The scientific experiment that proves all experimental evidence is invalid.
@@SecretEyeSpotInstead you found a new path of science and reason. Fellow traveler.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 exactly. Now Occams Razor is like my Excalibur cutting through the noise of nonsense claims. "Scientific" and Superstitious.. because we all know health product companies like to use buzz and fuzzy words to sell things that don't pass the smell test.. whether due to inconclusive results, or inadequate sample size during testing.. Empirical Examinations or Else!
These interviews need to be way longer
Really enjoying this series on the philosophy of biology
Absolutely, let me provide some concrete examples contrasting contradictory equations/formulations from classical physics and mathematics with their non-contradictory counterparts from infinitesimal/non-standard analysis and monadological frameworks:
1) Calculus Foundations:
Contradictory:
Newtonian Fluxional Calculus
dx/dt = lim(Δx/Δt) as Δt->0
This expresses the derivative using the limiting ratio of finite differences Δx/Δt as Δt shrinks towards 0. However, the limit concept contains logical contradictions when extended to the infinitesimal scale.
Non-Contradictory:
Leibnizian Infinitesimal Calculus
dx = ɛ, where ɛ is an infinitesimal
dx/dt = ɛ/dt
Leibniz treated the differentials dx, dt as infinite "inassignable" infinitesimal increments ɛ, rather than limits of finite ratios - thus avoiding the paradoxes of vanishing quantities.
2) Continuum Hypothesis:
Contradictory:
Classic Set Theory
Cardinality(Reals) = 2^(Cardinality(Naturals))
The continuum hypothesis assumes the uncountable continuum emerges from iterating the power set of naturals. But it is independent of ZFC axioms, and leads to paradoxes like Banach-Tarski.
Non-Contradictory:
Non-standard Analysis
Cardinality(*R) = Cardinality(R) + 1
*R contains infinitesimal and infinite elements
The hyperreal number line *R built from infinitesimals has a higher cardinality than R, resolving CH without paradoxes. The continuum derives from ordered monic ("monadic") elements.
3) Quantum Measurement:
Contradictory:
Von Neumann-Dirac collapse postulate
|Ψ>system+apparatus = Σj cj|ψj>sys|ϕj>app
-> |ψk>sys|ϕk>app
The measurement axiom updating the wavefunction via "collapse" is wholly ad-hoc and self-contradictory within the theory's unitary evolution.
Non-Contradictory:
Relational/Monadic QM
|Ψ>rel = Σj |ψj>monadic perspective
The quantum state is a monadological probability weighing over relative states from each monadic perspectival origin. No extrinsic "collapse" is required.
4) Gravitation:
Contradictory:
General Relativity
Gμν = 8πTμν
Rμν - (1/2)gμνR = 8πTμν
Einstein's field equations model gravity as curvature in a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold, but produce spacetime singularities where geometry breaks down.
Non-Contradictory:
Monadological Quantum Gravity
Γab = monic gravitational charge relations
ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx
Gravity emerges from quantized charge relationsamong monad perspectives x, y in a pre-geometric poly-symmetric metric Γ, sans singularities.
In each case, the non-contradictory formulation avoids paradoxes by:
1) Replacing limits with infinitesimals/monics
2) Treating the continuum as derived from discrete elements
3) Grounding physical phenomena in pluralistic relational perspectives
4) Eliminating singularities from over-idealized geometric approximations
By restructuring equations to reflect quantized, pluralistic, relational ontologies rather than unrealistic continuity idealizations, the non-contradictory frameworks transcend the self-undermining paradoxes plaguing classical theories.
At every layer, from the arithmetic of infinites to continuum modeling to quantum dynamics and gravitation, realigning descriptive mathematics with metaphysical non-contradiction principles drawn from monadic perspectivalism points a way forward towards paradox-free model-building across physics and mathematics.
The classical formulations were invaluable stepping stones. But now we can strike out along coherent new frameworks faithful to the logically-primordial mulitiplicites and relational pluralisms undergirding Reality's true trans-geometric structure and dynamics.
Look, obviously anyone can invoke the rationalism of logically-primordial multiplicites (SIC) to ameliorate the utilitarian adoption of pluralistic methodologies, but the perspective you provide here plainly lacks internal consistency. It has long be recognized that 'sets within sets' are ultimately ambiguous if employed as explanations for mathematical incongruencies.
Thank you for taking the time and effort, to write a long comment. Though i am trying to understand much of it, pedagogically this an effort to appreciate. High five.
Much better than scrolling theough one line comments, like 'who here in 2xyz is reading this', 'i wish you a good day...' efforts.
@@dianneforit5409indubitably!
I personally don't understand why evolution is so controversial to some people. It's a very interesting subject that explains a lot about us and the natural world.
It's great to see two intellectual minds collide.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY RICHARD ...
Dawkins---he's just a stooge for science.
It is an accomplishment of science that it can tell a story as magnificent as the scriptures - and that it could be even more compelling. Salutations to Professor Dawkins for kindling it in human terms and enriching our understanding.
What's the prediction on the Last Stem of Tree of Life? Any comments please?
It's either a big poof of nuclear smoke or heaven and hell depending on whether you believe people who don't accept God or believe in the central person in human history who demonstrated he could speak authoritatively on the matter.
The book The Ancestor's Tale is a tome---and every page is readable.
When was this filmed, 2024?
Not much philosophy here... ?
Ah, but isn't there?
@@fartpooboxohyeah8611 Point it out...
1:00 a single organism alone might not be the complete story, unless it had a superior status... results from bennu will definitely offer additional clues on the origin of life in our planet...
When two people use two different terms to describe the same thing, and neither one gives in.
is there truly just one tree? how to explain the codon difference?
The what?
@@simonhibbs887 codon usage bias
@@fubiao9149 You mean the way an organism can have multiple different DNA for the same Amino Acid? There’s nothing about evolution preventing coding for the same amino acid being evolved multiple times.
I assume you're asking about alternative genetic codes like those found in some microbes. The differences in evolved codon assignments between lineages are rare. When we do see them, the differences are minor. They are so minor that a single tree (for all known lifeforms to date) is still, by far, the cleanest explanation. This is especially clear when you consider how different the genetic code (evolved codon assignments) could be. That said, a mutation that causes just one codon switch could be lethal in most animals, since, assuming the mutation causes a total codon switch, it would instantaneously change the product of every gene that uses that codon.
So how do codon reassignment mutations sometimes slip through?
Many codons are redundant (protists, fungi, plants, and animals have 6 codons that all code for the amino acid, arginine). Switches are far more likely to be survived if they happen in redundant codons, and only if the redundant codon that switches happens to not be used in an essential part of an important gene in the species where the switch occurs. In some cases, switches are thought to give resistance to viruses, which is one idea as to why codon switches can been selected for. In other cases, it could have been simple genetic drift that allowed a seldomly used codon to switch assignment.
Oh dear. Someone who doesn’t understand the difference between evidence and faith.
[Faith] is a state of mind that leads people to believe something - it does not matter what - in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence, then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway.
Chairs. FFS, comfy chairs are important.
Richard has a kind of haunted look in his eyes of late like he knows his earthly journey is coming to an end soon .
and he thinks that his "earthly" journey is all there is ...
It's at least partly a consequence of the live camerawork; he's looking at Robert (and trying to avoid glancing at the moving camera), rather than looking straight at a fixed camera as is often done in TV interviews.
Perhaps so what
Could be that he senses that his dogmatic views on the mechanisms behind evolution are being challenged by serious opposition. Speciation is still a mystery that cannot be explained by random mutations in DNA and selection through adaption.
@@tomashultgren4117 Random mutations haven't been essential for well over a billion years, since sex was invented.
Fascinating conversation.
At first I was hesitant because of the video title. The use of the word "philosophy" disturbed me a bit. The science behind evolution is entirely founded on observed phenomena and physical facts. On the other hand, faith based knowledge domains are routinely described as philosophies as well and using that word, philosophy, for both begins to look like an equivalence fallacy.
Fortunately the video wasn't doing that at all and Dawkins was able to present his ideas on their own merits.
Observed evolution? You can't be serious. For decades, the excuse of evolutionists for lack of observation of evolution was that it would take millions of years to occur.
Evolution theory suggests that it happens by random mutations. In fact, mutations are faults during duplications of genetic code DNA. So it's a typo in the text, false command in the code. Obviously, there's no aim or purpose in these occurrences. Therefore, no giraffe has a long neck evolved to reach high branches, no chameleon is evolved to hide from its hunters, etc. On the contrary, mutations are causes of many diseases and anomalies. Cancer is caused by genetic mutations. Evolution cannot get approval from mind, logic, reasoning, conscience. All the living beauties with marvelous designs can not be product of random, blind chance.
evolution theory is also faith based. Even Darwin believed fossil record will reveal intermediate species but it did not, so we take it for granted there must have been. Science do not operate on facts, but on evidences which are evaluated to describe the world we see. Sometimes science can be precise, sometimes not and is based on assumtiions, nothing more. It also cannot be the only source of the truth, hence that is why we have philopshy to explain why rather than how.
@@zbuchusExcept the fossil record DID reveal what we commonly refer to as intermediates.
In reality, every fossil is an intermediate one. However, if we're looking for transitions between something like Fish to walking vertebrates, tiktaalik is one of the greater examples.
@@zbuchus evolution is a fact. We have plenty of fossils that show changes over time.
@@jasonthomas5793
I am not denying changes occur. In fact, believe in God does not compete with evolution at all. What we do not know and believe is what drives evolution. Randomness or minded/designed process. Darwin made multiple claims on how evolution works that were not proven. That is my point. DNA is the key to an answer and I do not assume anything.
Richard is perfect at everything
First time I realise he was called Christ.
Hippos and whales are related? This could explain the existence of my ex wife.😂😂😂
i see Richard Dawkins.. i Click.. its that simple🌟
I always find Richard entertaining to listen to, but sadly, he's still a fool.
@@stephenking4170 🎶everybody plays the fool(Sometimes). You're no exception to the rule 🎶
But seriously. What makes you see him this way? I can attest from my own life that accepting one's ability to be fooled is the first principle behind relying on empirical evidence instead of one's own preexisting or preferred beliefs about phenomena. If not, what hope is there for wisdom?
@@SecretEyeSpot The man said by tradition to be the wisest man on earth was King Solomon (despite his folly). He said " "Reverence for God is the beginning of wisdom" and His father King David said, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" This is why I refer to Richard as a fool. He trades his soul for pride and this makes folly of his otherwise often reasonable mind. The rejection of God is for Richard as it is for many a person, not an intellectual issue, but one of the heart, and he displays this when pressed in debates on origins. "Well you could possibly convince me that there is some supreme intelligence but certainly not the God of the bible, that would be intolerable". (quote by memory).
@@stephenking4170 I had an inkling that this was the source of bias behind your assertion. However, have you noticed that I didn't put my preexisting knowledge about the Bible scripture possibly informing your claim as grounds to be defensive in favor of Richard Dawkins? Nor am I going to preclude the probability that you've considered counter factuals to whether or not King Solomon or King David actually existed.
I hope thus far, you can see that refraining from coming to early conclusions about an arguments validity by ad hominem attacks against the messenger simply seeking the truth is the necessary impartiality that exemplifies the proverbial virtue of "not leaning on one's own understanding... to be wise in one's own eyes".
With that said, if you were to consider Wisdom as the shared goal behind how one investigates truth claims about Natural phenomena. Irrespective if one is theologically/teleologically inclined. Why would it be unjustified for a person to humble themselves to the point of being considered a fool to test the truth of a claim by inclinations of doubt until the preponderance of evidence says otherwise?
To answer this. I beg you to consider that even the mythology of King Solomon includes an account where "splitting the baby" was a test of a truth claim King Solomon demanded when he was adjudicating the custody rights between the two claimants. (Implying even hyperbolically playing a fool to wisely determine empirical facts is often the best way to investigate an unclear observation)
I love this book.
Richard is a great guy
What’s that Museum?
Oxford Natural History Museum
Dicky sharing his faith.
It's science actually supported by facts.
What does philosophy have to do with evolutionary biology?
One of my favourite items of evidence for evolution comes from DNA. Not the the way we all share the same basic blueprint which changes increasingly the further separated we are from other animals but that we have found a number of specific errors in our genome that also exist in the genomes of other primates, 'in exactly the same places'! Creationists can make up their nonsense about DNA being God's work but they cannot account for the precise sharing of errors in the code. The only explanation is that the errors occurred in a common ancestor and have been inherited by all divergent species that are traced back to that point. It's simple and beautiful.
Thanks for sharing that point.
Our line of ancestors goes back over a billion years. What of the future of life on this planet? I don't know what else to say.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 You are not alone in that question.
The reality is that major evolutionary changes occur over vast timescales and it is unsure whether humans will witness any but we have seen and will continue to see smaller changes.
Our own evolutionary future is also clouded. Now that we no longer have to overcome environmental challenges but are able to manipulate our surroundings, some scientists think we may have stopped evolving. With the exception of the humorus idea that we might evolve larger thumbs by playing video games 😁.
And there is always the delightful prospect that might destroy ourselves, or the planet's ability to sustain us.
The shape of a hippo's head is similar to a whale's head.
Legend!
Excellent, moor please.
Dawkins is my hero of logic. I undernine religion thanks to Dawkins ideas.
Dawkins has a childs view of philosophy and logic.
Certainly the views of a Priest are more logic and plausible@@gsp3428
Finally Sr Dowkins.
The McDaddy in telling the truth, whether you like it or not.
Science doesn’t make truth claims. What do you mean?
What does he mean that every creature they’ve looked at has the same genetic code?
How is that true? I don’t even have the same genetic code as my father? Am I missing something here?
He means the same genetic machinery
@@deslawson2662 so what’s that supposed to mean?
@@deanodebo They all have genes encoded in DNA using the same coding scheme.
@@simonhibbs887 what scheme is that?
@@deanodebo Are you OK?
0:30 One possible explanation for both the universality and homogeneity of DNA is that, although the first self-replicating systems took literally eons to randomly emerge, once they did their form strongly anticipated or ‘precursed’ DNA. So, thereafter, the transition to the more stable DNA was exceedingly rapid. That is to say, each modification, typically by some small molecular or atomic addition increased, not just the likelihood, but also rate of further improvement. As a consequence, the earliest version/s may well still exist, but their presence, fidelity and replication rates are so poor they’re now entirely swamped. And, as Dawkin's so senibly states, as an overall result the range of the rest of terrestrial life, both dead and alive, is far from infinite. Instead each example, and even each variety, is merely a compilation of functional units selected from a single tightly bound array.
Yes, evolution started since the big bang guided by intelligent design with some random properties just as we do with our own creations like AI, robots, random generators, etc
The transcendental flux of existential universalities impedes the cognitive dissonance of ontological epistemologies.
Yes, and God is Dog spelled backwards. But what does this mean for God, and what does it mean for dogs?
Surprised no discussion of God or higher power!
Thankfully not all educatated adults need fiction.
It is often overlooked that the primary function of scientists is to meticulously examine the natural world and formulate the most plausible theories regarding its origins, all while eschewing any recourse to divine intervention. It is imperative to understand that this approach does not, in any way, negate the existence of a higher power or an intelligent designer. Rather, it signifies a deliberate exclusion of such considerations from the realm of scientific inquiry, a methodological necessity that aligns with the overarching scientific endeavor.
Should the prevailing scientific theories hold true-that the universe indeed had a beginning, that Earth was once enveloped in an aqueous sphere veiled by a dense cloud, and that life originated in the oceans, eventually evolving to the present state of humanity-an intriguing parallel emerges with the Genesis account. Remarkably, the ancient writer, Moses, seemingly fortuitously, described concepts that align with modern scientific understanding, such as the Earth’s suspension in the void of space, now explained by the gravitational force. The statistical probability of Moses’ accuracy in these scientifically aligned descriptions is estimated at an astonishing one in a billion.
Moreover, a singular progenitor, the implausible genesis of life via natural mechanisms, human consciousness, moral intricacies, purpose, and aesthetic allure all distinctly point to a designer. There is no plausible means to circumvent this conclusion.
No one refutes microevolution or adaptation. The DNA software appears purposefully designed to facilitate diversification. Where anomalies occur in the genetic code, the Bible attributes these to the inherited sin originating from the primal human pair.
Let me just correct you here....don't call it mircroevolution...just call it evolution.
It's not a case of micro being true but macro being false. Evolution is a fact. It has occurred over billions of years. Now it's more about discovering what species may have existed during this time.
Actually, that statement is incorrect. For billions of years, life on Earth was composed solely of single-celled organisms-approximately four billion years, to be precise. Though we often describe these organisms as simple, they possessed remarkable capabilities, including metabolism and reproduction.
Complex life forms, specifically multicellular organisms, emerged much later, within the last five to six hundred million years. During this period, it is estimated that around five billion different species existed. However, the fossil record accounts for only about 250,000 of these species.
It should also be added that mutations mostly fail so for that much life to exist in such a short period of time is not even possible resulting in macro evolution being a hypothesis at best.
@@DanFedMusic it's almost like fossilisation is a rare occurrence....odd....
@DanFedMusic I don't know what your source is but there's plenty evidence that shows evolution has occurred over that long span of time. If "micro evolution " can and is occurring then "macro evolution" would be occurring. The only difference is time.
...that took you a long time.
Cgicken or egg first
Chicken. Now you know.
@@fartpooboxohyeah8611 all chickens come from eggs though.
Lots of species lay eggs besides chickens. The chickens common ancestor (a proto chicken ) would have also laid eggs.
@gsp3428 Not all eggs come from chickens. There's lots of species that lay eggs. The chickens' common ancestor most likely laid eggs.
It's interesting that whales, which appear to generally have a pleasant demeanour, are so closely related to the mammals with possibly the worst demeanour in hippos 😄
They are mammals .
@@tonyatkinson2210 I know that. What I wrote implies that both are mammals if you actually take the time to read it. But, thanks for the clarification.
''it is a sin'' that is all i need to hear..
Philosophy or science? Tree of Life (Kabbalah) or Dynamic Edifice Competition?
Nice class in philosophy but where is the science?
Philosophy? More like mythology actually. His philosophy is inconsistent and incoherent.
@@deanodebo Who are you talking about?
It was all science
I am not sure how he gets there is a tree of life because all living things have a genetic code. Thats just does not follow that because organisms have a genetic code they all came from one another or all related. If we looked at different type of vehicles like an airplane, or a car, or a boat, or a truck and we see they all have motors, and engines, and wheels, and other similar features, it doesnt mean because they share a common feature they all evolved from one another. Maybe each creature and thing has its own genetic code because it was designed with that particular code to make it what it is, which from our experience these genetic codes only give rise to other things with the same genetic code. Tomatoes come from tomatoes, whales come from whates, porcupines come from porcupines, because this genetic code is what this particular code for an organism was made to be.
" type of vehicles like an airplane, or a car, or a boat, or a truck and we see they all have motors, and engines, and wheels, and other similar features, it doesnt mean because they share a common feature they all evolved from one another" -- yes indeed it does actually , they developed sequentially based on technologies that were available. in the technology tree they are all descended from combustion engine technology that enabled them.
Except that machines are not living things that can reproduce and pass on genes.
Humans, like all other animals, grow, reproduce, and pass on their genes.
big fish. you should have asked him about god :)
Yes, lol
i'm korean Ricard. Is. My. Hero
I'm a Pantheist like Einstein and Spinoza and only I get to define what God is.😂
Richard taught me the evoluton now I am an atheist , not a slave to religion anymore.
I don't understand the connection between atheism and evolution. there really isn't one.
A little Robin dies its gone forever
Richard dawkins is the one true god
"... which is a sin." Very funny.
"...which is a sin." Which is distracting primate chauvinism.
"The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up."
--- Dr. Craig Venter
czcams.com/video/MXrYhINutuI/video.html
So I would be interested in what he is proposing as a substitute model.
@@arthurwieczorek4894hint: do you consider yourself an ape? And do you have a soul?
Evolution is a fact.
@@jasonthomas5793 wrong. Evolution is a collection of theories. Do you have access to google?
@@deanodebo why yes I do have access to google.
"Evolution, as a scientific theory, is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various fields such as paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, and embryology. It provides a framework for understanding how populations of organisms change over time through processes like natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation."
do you know what the definition of scientific theory is vs just a theory?
"in the scientific sense, evolution is considered a fact. When scientists refer to evolution as a fact, they mean that the process of evolution-the change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations-is supported by overwhelming evidence from multiple scientific disciplines.
The evidence for evolution includes the fossil record, comparative anatomy and embryology, biogeography, molecular biology, and genetics. These lines of evidence converge to provide a robust understanding of how species have changed and diversified over time.
So, while specific details and mechanisms within evolution may be subject to further study and refinement, the overarching concept of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth is widely accepted within the scientific community as a factual reality."
amazing what you can find on the internet.
There are two models of this universe. The first is that the universe is a skin cell👆 of Zeus. The second is that the universe is an apple🍏 in the garden of Zeus. The difference between these two models is in the first model, traveling to another universe is easy, while in the second model, traveling to another universe is far away. Either way, this universe will eventually die, and new universes will always be born.🦍
Who created single cell??????
God
I did
@@abel3557 so you are God then why you still human then how you escape from death
@@STUDENT-OF-ISLAM518 God didn't make the cell, that's the point.
You don't need an omnipotent fraud to make a system that isn't perfect.
There's abiogensis theories as an example.
there cant be "evolution" for a materialist ... all is a "deterministic" development from the first set of the universe. So all was already embedded (if you are a materialist).
Not true. Indeterminism has long been a part of materialism as a philosophy eg Epicurus.
@@tomgoff7887 its true but since MANY materialists deny any kind of free will they fall all into hard determinism... so everything is related to the "first set" of reality.
@@francesco5581 The issue then is how we define free will. If it's simply a form of randomness as per Epicurus, free will is an illusion. In any case, I can't see any difference between this 'problem' and the debate over free will among religious types. After all if some supposed god or other is omniscient and acts through human beings, where then is free will?
@@tomgoff7887 both extreme sides are a form of eternal nothingness and voided of any meaning. Thats why a free will is the key because free will is the main staple of morality. And since morality is so important free will cant be removed from the equation. But my point is that this universe is too complex and meaningful to assert that all was embedded in the "first set" by chance, without any kind of intelligence involved.
@@francesco5581 The opposite assertion is even more improbable. There is no evidence of some kind of intelligent creation just as there is no evidence of free will. As for morality, we don't need gods for that. In any case, they seem a highly immoral lot always demanding wars and sacrifices. The bible for example requires child scarifice and condones slavery, rape and war. Other gods and religions are no better - the Mongols and Vikings all considered their behaviour moral and justified on religious grounds.
I wiould add that 'predestination' as in Romans 8-11 doesn't do much to support your apparent contention that determinism is not part of religioius ideology.
If you work down the tree of life and reach the single cell, then the next step is to look at the complexity of the cell and DNA, the language of life and finally we reach the introductory words of John's gospel. "In the beginning was the Word (Logos). The Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made through Him". The bible is not God's textbook on nature, nature itself is this. But the revelation and insight in John is deeply profound and affirmed by scientific discovery in our lifetime.
We don't need the bible.
@@jasonthomas5793 You don't need bread, rice or potatoes either, or milk, meat and cheese, or fruit. It's your choice, your loss.
@stephenking4170 not sure your point.
And in some cases you do need to eat those things. I need them a lot more than I need a god, that's for sure.
See if I don't eat at all I die and If don't eat properly then I get unhealthy.
whereas me not believing in God has no effect on me.
@stephenking4170 furthermore you need some form of meat. Maybe you're vegetarian or a vegan, but trust me, meat is needed for brain development.
Fruit is also need.
Your logic is very flawed.
Again, if you don't eat, you'll die from starvation.
But if you don't a read a bible, then nothing will happen.
@@jasonthomas5793 People in many parts of the world survive on meagre or boring diets. My point is that it's a comparatively meagre life ignoring God. It stands to reason that if there is a Creator and He wants to relate with us then life would be more fulfilling living in sync with Him. You might feel fine without acknowledging God, but it will be richer believing and trusting in Him.
God has created you with this choice.
St. Finian's College Secondary School Mullingar Co. Westmeath Ireland
Medicine
Theoretical Physics
Samsung Galaxy S24 ULTRA
iPhone 15 Pro Max 1TB
Atheism
Big Bang
Evolution
ALDI
McDoanlds
The more we believe in fables and legends, the farther we are from knowledge. The truth is in everyone's own heart.
“The truth is in everyone’s own heart” sounds very much like a message imparted by a fable or a legend.
@@mandelbot5318 Yes! Mr, Dawkins can translate the message of science expressively without insurance. It was very high time to interview here ”to be closer to truth”.
Divine realms exist, psychedelics cause group mind states!
"You have your idea totally turned upside down..." Uncovered facts will always show your idea to be upside down because you are on the wrong path.
Next invite actual scientists doing actual science in the real world and changing lives with their work, like James Tour.
Are you joking? He is a fraud and an idiot.
@maxwell8758 how did you come to that conclusion?
If Richard Dawkins was from Alabama and had a southern drawl, would we take him so seriously . well there you go
Irrelevant. If you're telling someone the facts and they judge you on your accent and don't accept it....well that's on you.
Where can we learn Robert's full thoughts on consciousness. After all of his conversations, I'd value his perspective more than any one person he's talked to!
This guy is delusional. No real proof, only inconsistencies, confounding variables and contradictions.
Evolution is the most well proven idea in human history.
Science has not answered most of the Big questions in nature because Science has limitations to what it can do. Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, mathematician, broadcaster and author Marcus du Sautoy in his book, . He took over this position from atheist Richard Dawkins in 2008.
Of course. But then a process such as evolution, the topic of this discussion, is entirely susceptible to scientific investigation.
Science has answered most of the big questions. What are you on about?
Everyone boo this man! Booooo!!!!!!
Bottom line:
A universe with fine tuned laws that allow for life to exist and yet scientist can't figure out how the universe or life began.
5 billion different species and we only have a fossil record that represents 250,000 of them.
Mutations usually not succeeding and yet they're being 5 billion different species in the span of 600 million years in the face of five different mass extinctions.
All we have is an incredibly small fossil record and a lot of assumptions.
I don't know where that would ever be enough evidence for anyone regarding any subject.
As I've said before, numerous times:
1: fossilisation is a rare process. So you're not going to find a fossil in every location or from every time period.
2: Even if you had fewer fossils than that, there would silly be enough evidence to support evolution over a long period of time.
3. We have found new fossils this year, and there are more to be found.
4. Natural selection is the non random process that guides the beneficial mutations to be passed on. Beneficial genes will be passed on, and then some may no longer be needed and become dormant in current generations. We have many examples of dormant genes that were once active in previous species.
5. Dinosaurs show a huge change over time with various time periods.
You've read far too many documents on intelligent design.
All those figures I gave our scientifically accurate, not intelligent design material.
You're saying "we" have this evidence but you don't, someone else does and you have the faith that they do have it, which I can totally respect but you haven't looked at the evidence yourself and if you did you wouldn't really know what you were looking at, most people wouldn't even though they trust it.
We're still learning about how life may have emerged. We have some good hypothesis and some scientific theory.
But evolution isn't about how about how life began and its not dependent on knowing it or not.
We do know that evolution happens and has happened.
@@DanFedMusicI don't need to go to space to know the earth is round. That's not based on faith. That's based on the scientific explanation using the scientific method.
We get that taught in highschool.
I've also read the scientific literature and read the evidence on fossils. I've also been to a natural history museums and I've seen fossil up close.
no, he's right.. life is a sin. I do acknowledge the Absolute, and certainly can not favor any claims like, "we are God's special little creation, and he loves us and watches over us" - yeah, i dunno.
To speak from heart: life is a sob. Being human, understanding the constituents that make up the body, having to always eat to maintain the flesh, shoveling food back my throat like an animal, this is not pleasing. This ain't cute. Entertainment is cool and doesn't hoodwink me. Being led around in circles by the thronging mob is not cute.....BUT.....as Plotinus refuted the gnostics....in my words here: again, life is a real sob, and there still is beauty, light, reason, experience, music, meaning, the Divine shine forth and through all things....
I look at the manifestation as a procession....and the wise men of metaphysics found that the procession is the regression...so, if there is biological evolution, there too is mental evolution i.e. spirituality. Where else are you going to go?
It is interesting. We all find ourselves here currently, and i respect you all, despite our difference, because we all suffer, experience loss, subject to the ills of the flesh, have hopes and dreams, live under the same sun, stars and moon...at the end of the day we all fight to some degree to continue on, and hopefully people realize what it is they fight for.
Richard worship to the nature. Its like pantheism.
Pathetic ramblings by a misguided believer in science.
Evolution is a fact
It's like either you have to believe God created humans or humans evolved from apes. It's a sin or incredulous to think something else.
Technically, we are a type of ape. We evolved from a lower form of primate.
Evolution is a fact.
It's about the best scientific theory supported by facts.
It's a fact that we as humans evolved from a lower form of primate. We know evolution occurs in nature, we see this with speciation/ ring species.
A God creating everything is a hypothesis at best.
If you believes evolutionary biology his give to you confort to keep out any question about biology. He biology are proceendings definitive closer. However guys left behind emperism consistency with animal reality. He are only talking declines any experiement that to proof his biology. proceendings.
What???
Evolution is a fact.
I thought looking 4 truth wont find it with dawkins
Este ateo es mi ídolo yo como atea me he leído algunos de sus libros ese hombre habla con la verdad por qué nunca ha creído en Dios Dios es una gran mentira.
Me gustaría que vinieras a mi casa para prepararle un asopado de siete carnes.
How Robert can listen so intently to such drivel shows his professionalism.
Or maybe you don't understand the science.
Some people still think the world is flat.....
Having a similar genetic code only implies common ANCESTRY if you are committed to naturalism.
Having a similar genetic code can also imply a common DESIGNER, if you are open to all possible explanations.
Yea human and chimp came same god that’s it
however there is no evidence for the existance of one or more designers, so that is why it is not taken seriously.
@@billjohnson9472 how did you come to that conclusion?
@@mahones981 because none have demonstrated any evidence for the existence of supernatural designers.
@billjohnson9472 so if you saw a heart shape carved into a rock or the letters LOVE written in sand, you would immediately conclude that unintentional, purposeless random processes involving blindchance was the most reasonable explanation? You wouldn't be open to this being a demonstration of intentional design?
word salad
Waever drugs yall on, keep it...cuz waww
Sure there’s a debate about it, but honestly, what difference does it make teaching evolution in schools or not? It’s a trivial topic at best not to mention useless as there are far more important things that ought to be taught in schools like how to read & write, be able to do basic math, how to get a job, how insurance works, what credit score is, how to make friends or network & so on that matter far more than “evolution”
School should be teaching the facts of life, science etc
@@jasonthomas5793 Schools should teach important life skills & things that will actually matter in life, biology does NOT for 99.999% of people. Evolution doesn’t teach you how to get a job, how to make money through investing, how to save for retirement, how to drive, how to cook, how to do basic sewing, so on & so forth. It’s an unnecessary controversial topic of teaching it in schools we don’t need so to hell with evolution.
@janoycresva276 i agree that schools should teach life skills.
I also believe that teaching the important sciences of the world will help reduce the amount of stupid people coming to stupid conclusions, like people believing the world is flat and that a invisible being created the world.
If we don't teach people where we came from or how the natural world works then people will come up with their misguided explanations.
It's only a controversial topic if you're religious or if you don't understand it.
Also, I'd rather we have more scientist and less religious people.
@@jasonthomas5793 No it's a controversial topic in that it's a trivial irrelevant topic for 99% of people yet atheists like you push teaching it so hard. You're fine with pushing your agenda whereas you're against it when others want to push theirs. Also, the fact that the Earth is round is also another irrelevant point, it doesn't affect your daily life & the amount of people who don't think it's round is so small that it's irrelevant also much like evolution.
@janoycresva276 it's not an agenda it's just a fact of life.
Religion is an agenda.
Any one who still thinks evolution is a viable path for the appearances of all of the different phylum on earth needs to study more. And if they are "Phd" they should have their degree revoked.
Where did you study evolutionary biology for your PHD?
Study what?
Weirdly , the higher the level of your study in the subject, deeper and more convincing the degree you are persuaded by it
Evolution is 100% fact.
I learned about evolution in highschool.
You don't need a PHD to understand it....I'm sure it would help though.
No philosophy of evolutionary biology in this interview. No causal specifics. Just the usual vague tree-thinking mantra, degrading into the misconception that sequence data provides advantages. If only Dawkins understood abductive reasoning.
Biology does not bring us any closer to truth.
Thanks for telling everyone that you are both religious and definitely not a biologist.
Speak for yourself, it's helped me answer alot of questions about thr natural world.
Aristotle sucks
LIES .
It’s a “sin” to think that evolution had humans as a goal… and apparently the goal is to destroy humans and everything else with genetic entropy, my cousin Richard. What kind of silliness is that?
He can't explain consciousness.
Nor can you. That doesn't entile you to make up an answer
@@monkeymox2544 as I said, Dawkins CANNOT explain consciousness, and never will be able to.
@@Dion_Mustardwrong.
@@maxwell8758 right
A simplified explanation is that it evolved as a survival mechanism. Early life forms needed to sense and respond to their environment to survive. Over time, these basic sensory and response systems became more complex, leading to higher levels of awareness and cognitive abilities. As brains developed, especially in animals, so did the capacity for more sophisticated thought, self-awareness, and problem-solving, which we recognize as consciousness.
There it is, the magic word from Dawkins " same Genetic Code" ie " CODE". A genetic code is BORN not FORMED.
That which Formed initially is the FORMULAE for the existence of a Genetic Code of/for its purpose.
In this case we are talking about the intelligent species.
How did something Form. In its Simplicity. Elements fuse, Biology cannot fuse.
You do the maths.
Richard has no knowledge because he still live in time of Darvine . Now we know more than that
Evolution is considered a fact in the scientific community due to the overwhelming evidence supporting its occurrence over vast periods of time. Here are some specific examples of evidence that substantiate the reality of evolution:
Fossil Record: The fossil record provides a chronological sequence of life forms on Earth, showing transitions and changes over millions of years. For instance, the fossil record contains numerous transitional fossils, such as Archaeopteryx, which exhibits characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs, supporting the evolutionary link between these groups.
Homologous Structures: Similarities in anatomical structures among different species indicate common ancestry. For example, the forelimbs of vertebrates, including humans, whales, bats, and birds, exhibit a common skeletal pattern despite differences in function, providing evidence of descent from a common ancestor.
Embryological Development: Comparative embryology reveals similarities in the early stages of development among different species, reflecting their evolutionary relationships. For instance, vertebrate embryos exhibit similarities in structures such as gill slits and tails during development, suggesting shared ancestry.
Genetic Evidence: Molecular genetics has provided compelling evidence for evolution through the study of DNA sequences. Comparisons of DNA and protein sequences among different species reveal patterns of similarity consistent with common ancestry. For example, humans share a high percentage of their DNA sequence with other primates, indicating a close evolutionary relationship.
Biogeography: The geographic distribution of species reflects their evolutionary history and patterns of migration. For instance, closely related species often inhabit neighboring regions or share similar habitats. Biogeographical patterns provide evidence of common ancestry and evolutionary change over time.
Observational Evidence: Observations of natural selection and adaptation in action provide direct evidence for evolutionary processes. Examples include the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, coloration changes in peppered moths in response to environmental pollution, and the evolution of beak shapes in Galápagos finches in response to different food sources.
These examples represent just a fraction of the extensive evidence supporting the fact of evolution. The convergence of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines provides a robust foundation for the understanding of evolutionary processes and their role in shaping the diversity of life on Earth.