Richard Dawkins - The Evidence For Evolution - The Greatest Show On Earth
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 10. 2018
- Richard Dawkins - The Evidence For Evolution - The Greatest Show On Earth
SUBSCRIBE to channel: bit.ly/TheUnbelieversYT
Recorded: Oct 3, 2010
Event Organizer: Duke University www.duke.edu/
Clinton Richard Dawkins (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.
Dawkins first came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme. With his book The Extended Phenotype (1982), he introduced into evolutionary biology the influential concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment. In 2006, he founded the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
Dawkins is known as an outspoken atheist. He has claimed in interviews to be an agnostic about many matters of religious faith, instead endorsing reason.
I have stopped arguing with people over this . I am sure that anyone who doesn't accept evolution has ulterior motives .
Maybe not ulterior motives, but a brain unable to form any motives at all. Richard Dawkins is a thinker, a man who can think, and form ideas out of his research. Young Earth theorists and other "thinkers" cannot get past what they have been "taught". It's called indoctrination. Those people will never recover from the malady that infects their thinking, and it will take eons, for them to recover. I personally know dozens of them. They're almost exclusively Americans, and there is no reason to think that they will ever begin to think with any degree of intelligence. We have to live with them, we have to tolerate a level of intelligence that beggars belief. But as long as you know the truth, your sanity will remain secure.
either that or they just wish to remain ignorant. It is just as easy to believe in a universe from nothing as it is to believe in a god.
@@victorjcano Easier
I'd say that anyone disputing this is not quite right in their faculties.
@@henkmarks8856 Their priorities are emotional even to the point of denying the obvious .
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelmingly sound that one would have to be willfully and intentionally ignorant not to believe it. Arguing creation over evolution is like arguing that water isn't wet. The story of creation is just that a story with zero evidence, that's why it's called "The Story of Creation".
Do you know any of the evidence for intelligent design (different but a kind of creation) as pointed to by certain PhD's who are scientist and believers?
Obviously not: since you been told there is "zero evidence" and you allowed them to decide for you.
Do you think reading or hearing just one side, anyone can make a honest or a good decision? When a person knows just one side, is it fair to attack, or slander the
other side?
@@rdhallmansr
Provide one evidence that man was created as an adult male directly from dust (sand / clay .. from the soil of the earth) then the female was created from this male’s side, and we humans descended from these two through incest.
Also show us one example of a creatures just appear (are created) out of nowhere, or did God stop creating on the sixth day of creation?
Then explain all the animals that went extinct and the animals that obviously evolved from them.
Explain lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats.
Explain Zibras, Horses and Donkeys
Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc.
@@rdhallmansr
I use to be a pastor, I spent four years in the seminary. I know exactly what I'm talking about, there are many ex pastors such as myself. If you would like to educate yourself then go visit the clergy project web site. You made your assumptions of what I might and might not know out of pure ignorance. your one sided opinion also made out of pure ignorance. Your attempt to state a fact about me out of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about, you know not what you speak. Don't worry my friend this is a very common practice among the religious. You think you know what your talking about when in reality your speaking from ignorance. Now with that said provide all your so called evidence and if it is empirical evidence then the science community as well as myself will change our stance on evolution. The only reason the religious have not provided a single shred of empirical evidence is because they don't have any, plain and simple. As for me don't be making knowledge claims about me because you don't know a single thing about me. Cheers!
P.S. The Clergy project, go check it out there are many testimonials there from many ex pastors such as myself. Only willful ignorance will stop you from doing so.
@@rdhallmansr
Just for the record there are also PhD's who are scientist and believers who believe that evolution is a fact. Just wanted to throw that in there because I noticed you conveniently left that part out. Cheers!
@@rdhallmansr
Now you can pose your question to yourself. "when a person knows just one side, is it fair to attack or slander the other side?" Because you know nothing about me yet you felt you could attack my position (the other side). Hypocrisy is no stranger to the religious, that's one reason I left the church. I was tired of being a hypocrite.
What is the realistic expectation of change in acceptance of facts when this video has been on CZcams for 3 years yet only viewed by 10,000 people with only 196 likes and 17 comments! Video called Angel Encounters only published a year ago was viewed 97,000 times. This is just sad. I admire this educator and his patience. 21st century and adults still believed someone walked on water, another split the sea in two, one flew over the moon on a winged horse and one dropped a stick that turned into a snake. It is truly sad. It is easier to read one tax free book than to read multiple sources of facts.
Well, what do you expect, he's talking to Americans.😍😘😏 They don't understand what he's talking about. They only learned about the Bible in high school.
You don't force people to eat the most beautiful honey in paradise.
People can like something without "liking" it. A number of likes means less than the insects on a dog's turd.
@@jimnewcombe7584 I certainly hope so
Cheap hope wins
Thank you for posting! Fantastic!
First we need a universe that RD says came from "literally nothing" and to you that's.....Fantastic!
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block You are a true testimony to your God. He must be so proud of you.
@@Micca59 ok, we have a Dawkins fan showing how creation happened by "literally nothing" and got around the laws I gave by their evidence of....
"You are a true testimony to your God. He must be so proud of you."
You make such a great Dawkins follower.
@@2fast2block the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the moment of the singularity.
"Weeping in the pliocene" should've been a lyric from Can't Stop
Born in 776 Basra Iraq
Abo Othman bin bahar Al-Basry
He talked about evolution and the reasons of it, In his book
* The Book Of Animals *
I'm going to look up / google the book of animals. Thankyou
This is what so many people don’t realise, that many very critical thinkers had come to correct conclusions many years ago but didn’t have the capabilities or technology to prove it.
Not really, he made some very general observations about animals. very nicely written and interesting, but calling it evolution is a bit of a stretch.
I haven't heard this one yet. But I love the Dawktor, and I love book.
Top!
Bottom.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
czcams.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
czcams.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/video.html
czcams.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/video.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
czcams.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/video.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Thanks for your indispensable and eloquent contribution.
Excellent lecture
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." (II Peter 2:1-2)
Great lecture.
From a F00L.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
czcams.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
czcams.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/video.html
czcams.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/video.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
czcams.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/video.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
In all of Hitchens debates against religion you can tell he talked with Dawkins a lot cause he was always exclaiming 'some design!'
Richard you are amazing. Your knowledge is outstanding. If only I could remember everything I read or watch . I dont read much. I'm not to good at it if I'm honest 🤣 but while reading "The Greatest Show On Earth" some of the facts, i had also worked out this was how some things worked, which the book has also confirmed my thinking.. big thank you for your amazing work .. I hope this carries on into the ever evolving future through others eyes and great minds like yours 👍👍
I recommend: Origin of Variety - Session 4 (by PhD Zoologis why rejects evolution)
czcams.com/video/2Q6NW9Wc0xs/video.html
People spend too much time defending against anti evolution/anti science nonsense and not enough on teaching monophyletic taxonomy and the connections.
Dawkins is anti-science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
czcams.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
czcams.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/video.html
czcams.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/video.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
czcams.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/video.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
True
❤️ hearing facts in a world of lies
The lies are biblical
“… in a world of ignorance.”
Dawkins bases his whole argument against there being a God on the evidence that evolution happened instead of Creationism. He seems to ignore or be unaware of the fact that Hinduism knew about evolution thousands of years before Darwin. Both Buddhism and Hinduism have always accepted it. Evolution can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. If I'm A 22 year old scrawny man and I lift weights every day for one hour for 10 years I will evolve muscles. This doesn't mean God either exists or doesn't exist.
@@2mesense …and sometimes just biblical in proportion! 🙄
Evolution and the Bible are both lies. Created by brainless humans. Ones theory and ones fairytale
Despite knowing that 100 percent obstacles..how Said. Reality. Your Right. Yes.
"The earth is 10,000 years old" argument works if you consider us as only "seeing" a false reality as in Plato's cave or the dashboard theory whereby we believe what we are seeing on an airplane's dashboard of the airplane is the actual plane - instead of a representation of a generic airplane in cartoon fashion. If we could only see two-dimentional, a painting of the earth and believed it was the earth, when in fact, it is a painting, then the painting could be 10,000 years old. But if we were able to break apart the paint making up the painting, and measure the age of the molecules making up the paint, we'd likely find the molecules to be older than the painting. So it's possible and likely that all that we are able to detect with our eyes or by any other means of detection, is nonetheless, been "created" within the last 10,000 years and only made to appear to be much older; even having been composed of much older atomic particles.
That's just a ridiculous assertion. "Made to look older"... emotions can really shut off logic in people.
@@cezar211091 Just do a little more research into Quantum Physics to see how things are created. Keep in mind, most humans are relying on only their 5 senses to define their reality. For example in this macro field, we can see a collection of skeletons in a museum from so many different species and then a scientist will use reasoning to explain how they all took hundreds of thousands of years to evolve into those forms. Being a graduate from OSU with a BS in biology, I have accepted the hundreds of thousands of years to evolve theory. However, nowdays we know about Great Leaps in Evolution, along with cross-breeding to create new species, the foods grandparents ate or sudden environmental impacts to one generation changing future generations into intollerant of foods their older family eats, fear of certain environmental changes, etc... as when chicks run and scatter when a shadow passes over them - is an ingrained animal instinct picked up by the DNA from prior generations. Mice grand-pubs being programed to fear the smell of cherry blosoms. Therefore, how are we to say that our own bodies weren't "created" from a higher intelligence tinkering by mixing or CRISPERing? The creators of SIMULATORS are saying "This is so easy, to make things that look so real, that it's impossible to assume that a highly intelligent culture has not already evolved and created simulators that we are now living in." If you look at the Cosmic-Ouroboros; that everything in nature is fractile and takes on similar forms; from largest to smallest. Epigenetics being proven in the lab. Wild birds mimicing the sounds of outer space without their being aware of their copying behaviors consciously. Brain scientists saying our brains work more like a radio receiver; whereby our thoughts and personalities are being beamed into us from an exterior source; with us being avatars. Medatators and pass life regressionists saying we are living the fantasy program of a holodeck so that we learn spiritual lessons. Everyday we awaken in a different body, in order to learn what it is like to be them. The brain being the holder of memories that any soul can tap into much like we use to pop a movie into a VHS or CD player. So I didn't write the above out of emotions. I'm rational, like Spock.
@@cezar211091 Oops, left out the (hypothesis?) that brain neurons are structured like the components of outer space.
This is a good explanation of evolution, speaking on behalf of David Deutsch.
And all with just his voice, no slides and diagrams.
{:o:O:}
Richard is very cool . I like what he says . I think it is very interesting stuff and I watched most of his videos but never read one paragraph of the Bible and never intend to . I think one of Richard's books would be a fine read this winter .
Dawkins is thought to be a story teller by Georgy Koentges , an authority on the subject. Georgy seems to believe that burying the argument in undecipherable pseudo-scientific gibberish is a better way to present the science fiction tales based on Darwin hallucinations
@@piertinence Yes but Richard is proudly arrogant . He truly believes what he is saying and that's what really matters in the end . Richard is also an atheist and one less atheist would be a big loss for humanity so I am glad that we still have him warts an all .
@@kookamunga2458 Darwinist evangelist Dawkins claim that all the creatures in the creation (like elephants, boas, anacondas, giraffes, tigers, owls, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc.,) could only be designoid objects only presenting an illusion of design. The Darwinian apostle BS does not even present an illusion of making sense.
@@piertinence
Absolutely, humanity came from a single adult male that God made from the dust of the Earth, then made his female from his rib, then this male mated with himself.. I mean his wife and humanity multiplied from initial incest…
@@piertinence
If all living things were created as is during the six days of creation then explain all the animals that went extinct?
Most never west extinct but evolved into other species that continue to live on earth today.
Explain the similarities between lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats.
Hint: they came from common ancestors.
Explain Zebras, Horses and Donkeys
Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc.
Read about how generic fossils and ERVs present clear evidences for evolution. Today we don’t need to look for fossils to know evolution is true.
Evolution is a process that started 3.7 billion years ago. That is 3.7 thousand million years or 37 million times a human lifespan of 100 years.. some genetic mutations do cause major changes in the shape of a pelvis, vocal cords, brain connection, joints etc. Other mutations are more discrete.
You might wanna read about the science of evolution and why scientists make their claims about it. Also read about how evolution was used by man over thousands of years to develop the plants and animals you eat and the medicine you use. Read about its applications in the medical field.
The Bible, The Quran and all other scriptures are full of science fiction, historical lies and abhorrent moralities suitable only for their time. They all allow slavery, child marriage, killing and taking the land and wealth of those you don’t follow the ‘true belief’, and the subjugation of thought, innovation and alternative thinking to what’s written in Iron Age texts.
Do you think Dawkins is out there just to make you ‘believe’ in evolution vs special creation? Think again.
*Quotation:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude after the acceptance of evolutionary theory." -Stephen Jay Gould. Former professor of paleontology at Harvard University
It's the design of the anatomy of any life form which makes you question how it can be so perfect in design that people think its made by a higher force when in fact its the processes of 4.5 billon years of slow cooking is what as refined what we all see today and we want to throw it all away for selfish individual ego which is probably the weakest link in the whole chain the apex of intelligents man is its weakness for it over thinks its place in the scheme of things instead of just enjoying life like most species do who need to survive on each and every day
"It is an astounding fact that starting from nothing more complicated than rock and sand the process of evolution by natural selection gave rise to eventually us." - Richard Dawkins
This is simply not true and an astounding statement for Richard Dawkins to make - evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological living creatures over successive generations and certainly cannot explain how rocks and sand started living.
Your inability to discern the intent is the failing here.
no problem with that so called evolution but still it does not show there is no God.
@@serlitotiolo2355 You clueless oxygen thief.
@@michaelanderson7715 - One cannot discern anything when the teachings accepts known falsehoods or changes the words to make truth undiscernable.
The fact is mutations bring about death, not improvement. Even a small mutation in a creatures DNA will inevitably kill it over generations. The females will not mate with it if it continues to live. It is a dead end. There is no proof of good mutations, ever. You need evidence to prove that. Show us a before and after and study the DNA of both.
Anyone who tells you life came from rocks after billions of years is an imbecile and should be avoided as a teacher. If you cannot teach what we know is true, without adding your faerie tales, you should be banned as a teacher. Same with math, reading, etc. Stick to the subject or be fired and sued.
Life started from rocks because, rocks have emanated all sorts of chemicals into the water and the chemical soup has evolved into organisms, from that point onwards, single-celled life forms started to evolve with minor changes over thousands of years let's say. We do not live long enough to see these changes but the changes exist whether we like it or not and over billions of years, we are the result of that Evolution. We, the Earth, and the Universe will continue to evolve forever whether you believe it or not.
Just to clear up any confusion, Darwin's theory of evolution should after all this time. should be changed to Darwin's fact of evolution. because no one with a spec of a brain. can deny that evolution is the process of all life on this planet.
You need to look up what a scientific theory is
@@eddyeldridge7427 I know what it is, in the scientific world it's as good as a fact. I said because the religious extemists are too ignorant to get it in their heads. that a theory is as good as a fact.
@@musicauthority674
So we need to dumb down science? That's your solution?
@@eddyeldridge7427
In the case if religious freaks, absolutely yes. because they are too ignorant to understand anything else.
Evolution has always been a fact with theory (written explanation) to describe it. @@musicauthority674
Quotation:
"With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig." -Richard Dawkins
It's interesting but also sad that we still have to address this issue, more than a century and a half after Darwin formulated it. There is by now sufficient and definitive evidence to make clear that evolution is no longer a "theory," it's a fact. Indeed, way back in 1968, my Geology Professor at BYU in Utah opened his first lecture by asserting that fact. It's not really even remotely controversial any more.
Yeah, it's obvious and uncontroversial to any modern, thinking person. But we're dealing with age-old hopes, dreams and fears; bewilderment, the desire for easy, flattering answers and the vainglorious hope of an Afterlife.
That's why they refuse to listen and think - they're motivated not to, lest their Sky-God vanishes in a puff of logic.
Every single thing that evolution religion pulls out of its rear can easily be torn down. This man wouldn't last five minutes in a debate with Kent Hovind
@@Wedge39 Kent Hovind, the creationist? 😆
Show us the first ape descendant that was part ape, part human. Or 10% ape, 90% monkey. Or 50% ape,50% human...
I'm sorry but science should never stop investigating and never shut down debate.
There are many significant differences between Darwin's version of evolution and our modern version.
There also remains a lot of unknowns and gaping holes.
So no good scientist should ever assume new evidence will not arise that may challenge the current evolution hypothesis.
THANK GOD FOR RICHARD DAWKINS.
God as got nothing to do with it ?Evolution a key word natural not spiritual
@@wayneparkinson4558 Praise the Lord.
@@thegroove2000 It must be nice to have a comfort blanket in your stressful lives
@@wayneparkinson4558 God help us.
@@wayneparkinson4558 Lord have mercy.
Not too many in the audience have visited Williamstown, Kentucky.
Kentucky, home of the most ignorant, uneducated and ignorant god so called Christians on the planet. That's why Ken Ham set up business there and had other people pay for his ridiculous, failed ark. FFS he was a failing high school biology teacher who never worked as a scientist.
*Quotation:
"Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created." - James Clerk Maxwell
James Clerk Maxwell. James Clerk Maxwell FRSE FRS (13 June 1831 - 5 November 1879) was a Scottish mathematician and scientist responsible for the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, which was the first theory to describe electricity, magnetism and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" where the first one had been realised by Isaac Newton.
"Responding to the question, “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” posed by a science website in January 2005, Dawkins’ answer was: “I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.”*" Sounds like a religion to me.
If he actually said that, it sounds both reasonable and honest. Please note this quote refers to all life in the _universe_ , so any uncertainty stems from not having examples of life beyond earth to study. If it were just _this planet_ then that’s a different story: the evidence aligns with natural selection and it’s as proven as anything in science can be.
@@damienschwass9354 Spoken like a follower of any cult leader. I'm not saying he is right or wrong but to say that there is "proof" and then say "I cannot prove" is the scheme that all cult leaders do. "Believe me because I sound like I know what I'm talking about, I believe it, and ...." Don't be naive.
Dawkins has stated that he believes life is very likely to occur elsewhere in the universe and he believes it will have evolved through a process of evolution by natural selection as it has here on earth. Obviously he has no proof of this but since it is how life developed on earth it seems like a reasonable assumption to make, given the lack of alternatives
If he had been answering the question about life on Earth, he would have given a very different answer. Because he has proof for that. But the question was about life in the universe. For that he has only conjecture.
There is no other explanation That fits the facts. Evolution is the only explanation that works.
The only problem for evolution which remains, no matter how eloquently one speaks, is that the idea that complexity can come from nothing is absurd. In my thinking, the order of most likely causes for the universe and life on earth are: an intelligent designer, the flying spaghetti monster, and then a very distant third, 'nothing'.
Evolution doesn't ever mention nothing though
@@drsatan7554 i understand that evolution can only occur in two ways...natural selection and mutations or changes to genes. But behind this is the big bang, something out of nothing or an undefined something (might as well be nothing). I flirted with the idea of becoming an atheist and read 'the God delusion'. It was Dawkins description of how evolution works which he sugar coated with words like 'eloquent', that i realised how weak evolution was. If that's the best we have, I am a theist, or happy to consider the flying spaghetti monster, but not nothing, and accidental processes.
Nobody asserts that complexity comes from nothing. Nobody.
The only ones claiming that complexity comes from nothing are creationists.
My brain cannot comprehend complex cosmic functions so therefore god.
When I see you It's as if I've missed the reality. Maharaj of thought.
You real thanks making people think
Assumptions are not evidence. Evidence is observable, repeatable, and testable. That is science. Come on people think !!!
All the evidence for evolution is observable, repeatable and testable
Im willing to bet you can't cite a single article of verified evidence for evolution that isn't
Great lecture but do the Crowd laugh at everything. Goodness
He's a nitwit.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
czcams.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
czcams.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/video.html
czcams.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/video.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
czcams.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/video.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
So many people globally who have been conditioned with the old books, they have been taught to fear god and taught that to disbelieve is a sin. They want to be good and are too frightened to question everything and many are without the global knowledge to question without fear, the key is to give them all world knowledge so they can create a global identity, they are frightened of suffering, all that is needed is the teachings of the evolution of earth! There is a spritaul world in the history books, these things did happen, but they need to evolve into the now with the evolution so they do not make the mistakes made back then.🧡💚💙💜🤎 they need to understand that the Bible has things added from all the other people that took over the world.🧡💚💜🤎 now you can be who ever earth or as you call it God wants you to be and nutured by those that have had the freedom to evolve and understand science and the spiritual world 🧡💚💙💜🤎 evolve as a person In the now. Be what earth needs you to be. 💜
Old scripture and cave paintings is more accurate than what the old history book tell you bias books of colonialist ego's reigned for many a year until being re-written by new findings all over the world?
I also think that what confuses people is they just cannot get their head around the vast time scale of years evolution took to produce US.That is where geologists can help to understand evolution when we look at the shape of countries coasts and see when we pull them together how closely they can fit like a jig saw.
What is biological entropy and how is it offset?
A natural, or normal process, is simply the normal workings of a system in place, which means that a system cannot derive from a natural process over time, because a natural process will always be the result of a system in place, rather than the cause of one.
The second law of thermodynamics states that a thermodynamic system will always be found in a state of disorder or moving towards it in accordance with entropy law, which means that the universe began as complex, rather than simple, because the progression of entropy is a state of decline from ordered complexity into disordered complexity. Any process that tends toward disorder over time cannot self-improve in a matter of time; So adding time to a biological process that tends toward disorder will only increase the level of disorder there is in due time, because a biological system is also a thermodynamic system, and is thereby subject to entropy law.
The only way for biological entropy to be offset, is for the DNA proofreading mechanism to correct and delete a genetic mutation, because DNA proofreading and DNA modification is a thermodynamic instructional system that inherits genetic mistakes. So, because the DNA proofreading system is designed to correct a genetic mutation in order to maintain the systems level of efficiency, it will mean that no amount of slight mutations is ever going to improve the thermodynamic efficiency of an organism over time; Leaving the theory of evolution without a working mechanism for biological improvement.
*Quotation:
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” - Evolutionist Marc Kirschner, cell biologist, biochemist and the founding Chairman of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School.
We don’t understand how we came to be created. We are familiar with the guesses. We don’t know why we are here and where we came from.
What makes you say we were "created"? The theory of Evolution concludes that "we" emerged naturally. This theory is not a guess, it's a logical inference based on empirical evidence. We're here because all of ancestors successfully produced offspring that reached reproductive age. If by "we" you mean modern humans, we emerged as a species in Africa, and migrated across this planet, interbreeding with our cousin species until they, as distinct species, went extinct.
No mystery.
I HAD PARENTS.....
AND I LEARNED HOW SEXUAL REPRODUCTION WORKS....
IT'S NOT MAGIC.
I wonder what professor Dawkins thinks about re writing human evolution and telling the truth for we have been feed falsehood on our evolutionary path to the apex of earths most intelligent species when other got there first id be interested in his take on that?
56:08 Is that Bart Ehrman? Sounds just like him
If i had the power i would make sure that every school private and public by law should teach every pupil about evolution...because we can prove it .Not one religion on earth can disprove it .
If it seems right. I will take Yes. That's right. You are
*Christianity and the Common Law:
The history of the English common law, from which, the American, Australian and other common law jurisdictions originated, owes much to the influence of Christianity in its origins and development. It is indeed not possible to grasp the full development of the common law without first exploring its profound religious dimensions, and its motivating faith. Until at least the early 19th century, the common law was heavily influenced by Christian theology. This theology holds that there is a natural or divine reason for the existence of basic laws, and that these laws stand above human legislation, thus reflecting universal and unchangeable principles according, to which, everyone ought to live. - Source: Rediscovering the Christian Roots of the Common Law Legal System (Published by Hein Online Legal Resources).
제국주의의 나라였던 예전 영국은 이기적유전자가 많았던 시절이었나? 이 땅의 분열은 왜 생겼나는가? 이기적유전자의 지시가 아니었나 추측되네,...
이기적유전자책을 조금 읽다보니 생각나네,,,,
WHO NEEDS SCIENCE THAT WORKS
WHEN YOU CAN HAVE MAGIC SKY WIZARD FAIRY TALES THAT NEVER WORK.
Yeah, pretty much.
Religion: it won't work.
Science: it can work.
Sometimes mankind itself makes made doubt evolution.....
Mostly I see that cartoon of creatures reaching land as humans and then devolving into office workers or NRA-supported mass shooters or some such subhuman idiot.
Common descent and the evolutionary theory vs common sense and the law of procreation:
The evolutionary theory of common descent implies that all species have derived from a common ancestor, which was first put forward Charles Darwin who asserted his ideas from Carlos Linnaeus. Carlos Linnaeus assumed that all varieties of creatures held a distinct characteristic that related certain groups of creatures as being in the same phylum or group by way of genealogical descent. This gave rise the term, mammal, which is used by the evolutionary theory to conclude that all life has a common ancestor. But what the term, mammal, does not take into account, is a species method of reproduction, which must be taken into account in order to define a breeding group in terms of a phylum. Procreation is a copying process that is limited by a set of parameters that act as a set of rules.
These rules are applicable to procreation in that a species can only be defined as breeding group or phylum, while anything outside of the breeding group will be defined as a separate species or kind. So, because each group of human beings can procreate, it will mean that mankind is only one species, which in turn, defines mankind as only one kind. A common ancestor that relates all creatures into a single family tree or phylum has been rejected by genetic research on the basis that there is no such creature that can house all genetic traits. DNA RNA transcription is a copying process, and the rule with any copying process is that each copy must derive from an original copy, because only the original copy will have all of the information for variation. This implies that all life began as complex with separate ancestors in terms of a phylum, because if the physical features that an organism has were not with the first copy that its genome began replication with, then there is nothing for the copying process to select from in terms of physical traits.
So, for this reason, speciation leads to a reduction in terms of variability, because all of the information for variation has derived from an original copy, which cannot be a bacterium, because a bacterium does not include a set of genetic traits that can be expressed by every organism. When variability is passed down to the offspring hereditarily, there will always be a loss of variability due to the copying process by definition of the fact that a variant is only a variety within a kind. This means that speciation leads to a reduction in variability on the basis that a variant cannot express all of the information for variation, while the original copy does. And this also proves that each creature has not derived from a common ancestor, but from distinct groups instead, because the DNA RNA copying process limits the amount of variation that an organism can express in terms of a standard.
So, in order for a standard to occur in terms of a species, then a biological kind is also required, because it is the word "kind" that will define a group of species in terms of a common ancestor. Carlos Linnaeus attempted to divide all groups of creatures into a phylum of separate species, thereby establishing the Linnaean classification system as being based on separate kinds. And though Linnaeus' description of separate kinds allowed for the introduction of multiple species within a kind, he also asserted that separate kinds were of common descent, such as apes and humans. Charles Darwin took things one step further by asserting that all species have derived from one kind of creature despite the fact that no one creature contains all of the physical characteristics that each creature has.
This means that all living creatures are broken up into different kinds with separate species within a kind so that an open breeding population is favoured over a closed breeding population. So, because DNA RNA transcription is a copying process, it will mean that all of the physical characteristics of a species are relative to a particular kind that its genome began replication with, because it is the kind of creature that implies a standard version, while a species is simply a version or variety of the standard in place. So, a biological kind is any standard version that will speciate over time into distinct varieties, which proves that not all creatures have derived from a common ancestor. While a group of species within a particular kind have derived from a common ancestor by reason of deduction, because there is a standard version in place, from which, speciation has occurred. So, for this reason, a species cannot be defined unless a particular kind has been identified first, because a group of species will always be the result of a biological kind, rather than the cause of one.
*there is no such creature that can house all genetic traits*
This is where evolution and mutation kick in.
When he asks where the money comes from: The students pockets…
Someone as got to pay for the lecture even if its not always factual that's just Economics evolution in action
Darwinist evangelist Dawkins made himself filthy rich by preaching a Darwinian evolutionary creation. myth
Are there any examples of evolution that we can observe in front of us right now?
Selective dog breeding. Agriculture. Vaccines.
What exactly are you looking for?
@@eddyeldridge7427 no, that's not your goo-to-you evolution. You know, show that life came from non-life on its own that started your whole fairy tale of this all.
@@2fast2block
My evolution?
I'm talking about the evolutionary model used in biology. No goo. No origin of life. Evolution occurs AFTER life begins.
You're getting confused with abiogenesis. That's the origin of life.
Just because you have God as a catchall answer doesn't mean everyone else's worldview is so lazy. Different questions have different answers. Reality doesn't care about your convenience. So, you have to read multiple books. Boohoo.
@@eddyeldridge7427 Abiogenesis IS part of your evolution. The rule that it’s not was made up by your side because it crushes your goo-to-you evolution from the start. Of course it has to include life that can replicate and gain more complexity from the start. That is what your idea of evolution is. That’s why your rule was made up for no reason but a ploy to try to distance yourself from reality.
@@2fast2block
No, it's not. Like I said, different questions have different answers. How life started and why are there so many variations in organisms are two different questions.
You want them to be the same thing because you just one to have one target to attack.
But even if abiogenesis were 100% false and your god created all life exactly as the bible describes, evolution would not be affected. Evolution does not contradict the bible. It aligns more with the bible than heliocentrism. But you don't question that. Or do you?
If you define God as an entity beyond the natural world it’s not a falsifiable belief but it would be a weird God …the natural world is way way more fascinating than was conceived in old scriptures ..
It is impossible to have a relationship with a perfect being, if one existed that is.
Why are snowflakes evidence of design?
In the late 18th century, German physicist and musician, Ernst Chladni, demonstrated how vibrations could be used to create striking geometric imagery by spreading fine sand across the top of a metal plate and then running a violin string along the side of its edge. Chladni’s demonstrations show that the sand will settle into distinct geometric patterns depending on the frequency that the sound waves produce by the violin string rubbing against the edge of the metal plate.
When the Chladni plate, for instance, vibrates in one of its modes, a hexagonal geometric pattern appears in the sand on top of the plate, which is why geometric patterns, such as circles and triangles overlapping each other, are found in nature. Centuries later, in the 1960's, a Swiss physician named Hans Jenny built on Chladni’s experiments in an effort to study vibrational phenomena, which he called cymatics. Cymatics is a physics term which refers to the study of visible effects that sound and vibrations cause on matter, and everything that is organic or inorganic vibrates at a certain frequency, because the structure of an atom is vibrational.
For example: A snowflake is born when water vapour travels through the air and condenses by changing from a gas to a solid which then forms into an ice crystal. Water is a liquid crystal that holds memory in terms of its geometric shape at a molecular level, and when water molecules are vibrated the molecule will take on the particular shape that the vibration is making, which gives each snowflake a signature pattern. Sound is not only visible in terms of geometric patterns, and is therefore deterministic, but also, the frequencies must be in tune with one another in order for a molecule to be stable within its environment, which is evidence of design due to the presence of a rhythm (or sequence) that is held in tune (or calibrated) according to a method (or standard).
When musical vibrations are channelled through a malleable medium, such as a liquid or gas, the vibrations cause the medium to arrange itself into visible geometries with overlapping shapes, and this is what actually causes the unique pattern for a snowflake to form, because as the vapour is solidifying into an ice-flake, a geometric pattern is formed simultaneously, which is entirely due to the resonant vibrational frequencies that are affecting the particles at a subatomic level. So, because a snowflake can retain its geometric shape, and because the geometric shape is the result of electromagnetic vibrations, it will mean that there is a space for memory that is both vibrational, as well as electromagnetic.
The arrangement of atoms to make up a molecular bond is arranged according to a set of base frequencies from the force of the vibrational resonances that are produced by the electromagnetic polar effect between the positively charged protons and the negatively charged electrons. The signature frequency of each resonant impulse according to a scale of different frequencies in ratio specifies for the arrangement of a molecular structure, which is evidence of creativity, because any set of frequencies that are in ratio with one another according to a rhythm in tune is by definition, specific.
The structure of a molecule must be synchronized according to a set of base frequencies that are in ratio with one another in order for a rhythm to occur that is in tune, which is predetermined according to each figure or value that each base frequency has in terms of musical scale or notation. And atoms must be in tune with one another or they will not bond, which is why atoms were indeed created, because the stability of a molecular structure is depending upon the atoms to be in tune with one another according to a set of base frequencies that are in rhythm, (or ratio) the same as it is for musical scale when a group of instruments are working together in synchrony, or symphony.
The structure of an atom is constant motion, which means that an atom must work according to rhythm in sequence so that the electrons do not collide with one another. And anything that works according to a rhythm in sequence, is by definition, specific, which is evidence of design, because there is only specified and unspecified to chose from. The structure of an atom also works according to a cycle in place that is repeatable under observation, and anything that is repeatable under observation, is also specific, which cannot occur at random by definition of the fact that anything random will be unpredictable.
This shouldn't be controversial for religous peple. That Goc created the universe is not to proved nor disproved. But for life, Genesis says that God commanded the earth to bring forth life, and then for the sea to bring forth life - in that order. The HOW is not mentioned. For millenium people could not understand how the sea could create life, but now we know.
Yes, could have also been Gaia, Shiva or any of the other many creator gods. Can’t be proven, can’t be disproven.
Your fairytales isn't evidence.
@@fraser_mr2009 No-one mentioned "evidence." We just say there is no evidence for a creator or a universe which created itself before it existed. It's all down to faith.
How Life was created ?
It wasn't "created", it emerged naturally from non living matter.
People know its real many do not want it to be real. You cant help this
JBS Haldane’s quote about pregnancy was incredibly stupid. Embryogenesis is directed by modern DNA . That completely begs the question of how modern DNA formed.
*Quotation:
“I have no explanation for complex biological design. - Richard Dawkins. Fancy Quotes
One would think that anyone who does not know and understand the evidence supporting design as PRESENTED by PROPONENTS of intelligent design, has no right to express an opinion
regarding ID. .
Yeah, I feel sympathy with you.
In my Space-Alien Cult we have translated and learned the names of over 300 Space-Aliens. Does Dawkins know the name of even a single one?
No, he doesn't. Therefore he has "no right to express an opinion".
@@donthesitatebegin9283
lol
What evidence. Despite asking, no one has ever offered evidence fir ID.
@@peteconrad2077
Actually the ID folks have published a couple of peer reviewed papers supposedly as evidence for design.
But, ID has never tested their hypothesis. They cherry picked evidence on some meta reviewed work, but not once, not ever have they attempted to disprove their own assumptions.
It is non-science.
@@ozowen5961 indeed. That’s fear real science.
If you want people to listen to this video you are going to have to do something about thie sound because it is far too low
It's not just creationists that think that there are gaps in the fossil record, it Stephen J Gould. His theory of punctuated evolution rests on it. "Stasis is data."
"It's not just creationists that think that there are gaps in the fossil record, it Stephen J Gould. His theory of punctuated evolution rests in it. "Stasis is data."
- as usual, the ignorant makes a claim on the basis of a comment decades old, since then there has been a massive addition to the fossil record.
You haven't a clue.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect Gould wasn't just speaking of missing links but a pattern of stasis interspersed with discontinuities. What are you claiming exactly?
@@DavidLoveMore Did I mention missing links?! I made the point you are citing commentary from decades ago, bring yourself up to date!
- moreover, do you accept evolution occurs?
@@Dr.Ian-Plect So which of the Cambrian phyla have you found precursors for?
@@DavidLoveMore I too can ignore your content.
Arguing for evolution is good, undermining religion is better. Attack the attacker and expose the lies.
We only have to look at the evolution of religion.
Natural selection works, but to select the fittest, not to create more complexity. Dawkins never deals with that fact: how a blind unguided change at the gene level is able to come up with more complexity, knowing that in order to gain it there are several parts involved.
About the missing links in the fossil record the professor forgets all he learned about statistics and what samples mean. Centuries of collecting specimens and not a single one represents an “in-between” link between two already classified species. The continuous trend forecasted by the evolution theory has no evidence in nature, none. All are big leaps of an ever increasing complexity among the species of the tree of life. The claim that missing links is a matter of time is like doing a poll and getting 100% preference for only one candidate but still argue about the possibility of the other candidate not only to appear, but to win the race.
Lastly, he doesn’t deal with the Cambrian explosion either, which is something Darwin himself left as an unsolved mystery.
Sorry fellow skeptics, on this matter science just doesn’t have the answers.
Natural selection has created more complexity. Some bacteria now are capable of digesting plastic which no lifeform could do before
Absolutely all known life has 360ish distinct genes that the lifeform known as LUCA possessed. Thus proving an "in-between" link with all known life. That's why its called LUCA, last universal common ancestor
Claiming there is no evidence for evolution doesn't change the fact that there is. You're clearly talking about something you know next to nothing about. Pays to do your own research as opposed to listening to bias science denying theists
Your first sentence is false from the start.
You either clearly have an agenda to deny, or you are incapable of understanding. Dawkins specifically explains this many times, but his “Mountain of improbability’s” (my apologies if this name isn’t quite accurate) explains the development of complexities quite well.
@@sstolarik That mountain analogy doesn't explain anything, it's just a pears and apples explanation for the masses, you included, obviously.
What I mean is that one gene has a long set of nitrogenous bases grouped in codons (set of three bases) which account for each individual amino acid in a protein through the mRNA. The average protein has 400 amino acids, which means that the average gene has 1,200 nitrogenous bases plus the codons to indicate its start and finish. The gene creation, which is blind as we know, has to be so precise that it needs to contain the blue print for the right protein.
There are molecules that are not proteins, like lipids, or starch that need a set of proteins to be synthetized.
Moreover, pretty much all the organelles in a cell are comprised by parts. All parts need to be in place in order to function, hence, a missing part makes the whole structure useless, and all of them come from a number of different genes.
As a result, what Dawkins is suggesting is that over a long time, randomly, genes are being created (remember, more than 1,000 bases in the correct order) and kept for no reason until for some magical law of probabilities a set of genes become useful to one another to form a certain organelle, synthetizing the right protein (s) that the cell might have needed.
Just like he said he has no answer for the origin of life because a DNA-generating protein needs to start the process from a thread of RNA, making the whole thing an unsolvable chicken and egg situation. Actually, the same applies to all new complexities in the cell.
On the other hand, do you have an explanation for the Cambrian explosion?, and, do you believe, like Dawkins, that some time in the future paleontologists are finally going to find a missing link between any of the million species we have missing links for? (and in the process suggesting that statistics is a black magic field or something).
Finally, I have only one agenda, following the truth. And I can tell BS when I see it. It amazes me to see scientists not realizing they just don't have the answers to this, but still insist in an idea that has less and less basis as the knowledge becomes greater.
What exactly is an "in-between link"?
@@sergiocuadra2738 I appreciate your level of detail in your response, Sergio, but you’re missing the point. It’s not the precision that develops the complexity, but time and minute repetition that finds a successful combination, not a watchmaker. Life is more akin to dropping grains of sand on a coin standing on its edge. Any grain that manages to land on the edge of the coin wasn’t precisely placed there. Out of the millions of grains that fell, only the lucky few made it. I know this is a vulgar example of “survival of the fittest,” but apt. The mountain analogy merely illustrates the small, but great, efforts over a great amount of time to reach a more complex state. Whether it’s mutations at the gene level caused by environmental considerations, introduction of foreign coding from an external source such as a virus, etc. all DNA-based lifeforms are in a constant state of flux. Over millions of years that diversity would amount to a myriad of diverse grains of sand all aiming at staying on the edge of the proverbial coin.
When the unbelievers are the Muminin23 (Believers)! How the table have turned! Surprise!
#science
Richard I luv u m8 but "please" Speak into the microphone!!!-Don't give me your "Bedroom voice"!.
this has 90 000 views and baby shark 13 billions... very sad.
IF THE ARMS RACE IS FUTILITY WHERE IS THE BENEFIT? WHERE IS THE IMPROVEMENT? WHY IS THERE WORSHIP OF DARWINISIM ? WHY IS THERE SUCH HATE?
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?
Why do you think it's hate?
No Ken worships Darwin. The arms race has no point. It’s just an inevitability of life.
However much proof there is for evolution, or how little, it is in any case a big lot more than for the Biblical creationism.
The only thing to be used for creationism is the Bible and who, with any Grey Matter, can place any trust in that?
You could debate until tomorrow about creationism and evolution or about morality which are just peripheral or collateral issues. the primary and central problem is whether God in the person of the Lord Jesus exist or not in this modern time. I can not accept the explanation from organized religion which is shallow, only based on blind faith and from atheists and skeptics which is easy to deny. May be these persons are lazy or they don't know where and how to find and meet the Lord Jesus personally.
LIKE IN GENESIS 30 THAT CLAIMS THAT GOATS FUCKING IN FRONT OF BRANCHES PRODUCE SPOTTED GOATS?
DID YOUR FAIRY TALE TALKING ANIMALS TELL YOU THAT?
@@serlitotiolo2355 utterly irrelevant.
Its so funny how every single presentation of evolution by anyone has a part of dogging on religions😂
It makes RD feel empowered. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
If energy did not exist originally, WHAT GAVE GOD HIS POWERS?? Even the supernatural is powered by energy, CREATARDED fL0ggers. @@2fast2block
There's already the Whig interpretation of History, I suppose this is the Whig interpretation of evolutionary biology.
Dawkins is a dolt, whig or not.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
czcams.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
czcams.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/video.html
czcams.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/video.html
czcams.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/video.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
czcams.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/video.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
No
How is it Richard Dawkins treats as a matter of course that there is no intelligence in the Universe/existence, yet at the same time he takes if for granted that the cells of the human brain, by exchanging information, do create intelligence?
If so, then why should it be so difficult to assume that everything else in the universe (exchanging information) can also create an intelligence of some kind, even if such is beyond the understanding of Richard Dawkins, and all other human beings, to understand?
By exerting his denial of the logical, Richard is, in a way, acknowledging that a probability is worthy of being denied?
‘Though it would be hard sell on the lecture circuit, so best not to have it asked by the Dorothea Dixers..
Because there’s no evidence for an intelligence on a universal scale. I don’t think it’s being taken as a “matter of course” that’s there no such thing, so much as he sees no convincing evidence that there is. Neither do I.
These professors are no different than anyone else its a form of protectionism hence to keep them relevant instead of being drowned out by the real truth
@@damienschwass9354 : It's according to where we think our reality resides, and the trigger forces we don't yet understand? After all our perception of our reality is in our consciousness so maybe there is no need for there to be anything outside of that perception?
One should remember while watching these flagrant and fraud proclamations that evolution explains only minor degrading changes within species, but certainly leaves unanswered real questions like the appearence of new species, the life emergence etc.
If you bothered to actually read anything on evolution, you would find that the appearance of new species is indeed explained. The theory of evolution is about how living organisms evolved, and does not purport to offer an explanation for the emergence of life.
Provide one evidence that man was created as an adult male directly from dust (sand / clay .. from the soil of the earth) then the female was created from this male’s side, and we humans descended from these two through incest.
Also show us one example of a creatures just appear (are created) out of nowhere, or did God stop creating on the sixth day of creation?
Then explain all the animals that went extinct and the animals that obviously evolved from them.
Explain lions, tigers, Jaguars, Cougars, cats.
Explain Zibras, Horses and Donkeys
Monkey, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans etc…
@@stevepierce6467 would you mind to share the source, any scientific paper that says that it is a fact and not a hypothesis or a theory?
@@krypteral What is the difference between a "theory" and a "scientific theory"?
@@vejeke Either one should be falsifiable or it is not a theory, it's a religion
These people prefer mythology over science. It's insane.
No, just naive.
Evolution is a subset of the Creator intended plan we are just too incapable yet to know why…!? You are just keep on explaining it and how it works.
Evolution is a subset of the Blue Unicorn's intended plan......or substitute any imaginary personage for Blue Unicorn.
Oh cool, how do you know this?
Good evening..
Only one question to Dr Richard Dawkins as he is expert in Biology:
Dr Dawkins you know better than me the smallest genome in nature is bacterium called Carsonella ruddi have 159.662 'letters' base-pairs of DNA , so to arrange 159.662 'letters' by natural selection process how many billions years need ?
Dr Dawkins you know very well even for smallest genome in nature
IMPOSSIBLE
assembled by natural selection..!!
Please respect the our mind and science as you are expert in Biology.
Thank you
@@SimSim-zf9if
Please before to answer reflect of the meaning
Genetic code (A C G T) for 159.662 'letters' to be arranged in sequence order by natural process
It's the same four nucleotide bases arranged in sequences due to chemical affinity with amino acids. It's not impossible, it's a directly observed fact.
@@speciesspeciate6429
I hope you know the meaning of software code of our programming in bit information: 0 1
In the genetic code of the DNA is 4 nucleotide.
Let give practical example of sequence of nucleotide of dna of some bacteria (I will write the first 3 codon )
GTG CAT CTG ACT
as you know every codon must be in that order to give instructions for building an organism.
What is the probability only these 3 codon formed alone ?
Now:
The smallest genome in nature composte of 159.662 'letters' must be in perfect order to build an organism of life for the bacterium
Again :
What is the probability to arrange all the codon of total of 159.662 'letters ' forming alone by natural process?
DNA is not code in the sense of a computer program. You made a category error.
It's not possible to calculate the odds of something happening with or without a God, it's only possible to calculate the odds of something happening. In this case we have a sample size and it is 1, so the odds are actually 1:1.
You quoted some very bad work, by Fred Hoyle, that has already been disproved.
It's a good job no one in science is claiming dna just appeared then isn't it, you know being complex etc nonsense word salad!
Dna comes from rna, how that comes is fairly well known.
You'd do well to read research real science instead of relying on your pastor or anti science propaganda groups like answers in genisis.
Dawkins seems to confuse asserting, assuming and explaining things with empirical science.
One can only say so much in on single lecture. You need to take into consideration that what he is asseting is based on his entire life's scientific work, including many books where research, data and evidence-based information. He is not simply asserting arguments out of spontaneity...
@@j-sm4554 I am making quite a strong claim. There is no experiment behind his explanations. He goes from hypothesis to fact skipping the science part where you attempt to verify your conjectures in a falsifiable way.
Most of his books do not even attempt to provide evidence for what he is saying. Only his book The Greatest Show on Earth, even attempts to fill the void.
What's the 'empirical science' behind supernatural creation, duncey?? @@DavidLoveMore
@@DocReasonable The different families of animals have no common natural ancestor as can be seen through the genetics.
@@DavidLoveMore "The different families of animals have no common natural ancestor as can be seen through the genetics"
- explain how genetics demonstrates that
Pierre-Paul Grassé French scientist and past President of the Academie des Sciences has said "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."
Grassé, Pierre-Paul, 1977, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, NY, pg. 8.
Well done for citing someone who was dead by the mid 80's, was a remainer on the stump of neo Lamarckian evolution and is irrelevant given the massive expansion of evidence for Neo Darwinian evolution since he passed.
@@ozowen5961 your brain is dead. You showed how you ignore science as RD does. When you don't like evidence that shows how tiny your brain is, you make up anything you want no matter how lame. Look how clueless you love to be when shown the universe can't come about on its own...
Empty you....."The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe."
It's your way of ignoring evidence. You can do it with anything you don't want. We have 2 + 2 = 4 but if you don't like that, you throw it out that it may equal something else outside the universe. It's lame but lame is what you are. Then....we don't have an outside until there is something there to be outside of. As I showed, we don't have that something that can come about on its own. There can't be something there without a cause. Law of Causality - 'There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.' You just show how tiny your brain is over and over again. You want to ignore solid evidence and you have no way out of it. You have such an unsound mind, no amount of reasoning will change you, you want what you want despite the clear evidence and your lame excuses don't work.
@@2fast2block Wow you are such loser;) You copy paste crap since like 10y and you done nothing to convince even one person;)
@@tgstudio85 wow, even more science from you that somehow got around the laws..."Wow you are such loser;) You copy paste crap since like 10y and you done nothing to convince even one person;)"
Well, that didn't beat....The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block "you ignore science as RD does"- that's New College Fellow, evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins MA, DSc, Dphil, FRS, FRSL author of the most influential book in the life sciences since Darwin......THAT guy?
Why do you humiliate yourself posting this infantile tripe?
*Quotation:
“No one must think that Newton’s great creation can be overthrown in any real sense by this Theory of Relativity, or by any other theory. His clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation upon which our modern conceptions of physics have been built.” - Albert Einstein.
*Quotation:
"The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Sir Isaac Newton
What percentage of Nobel Laureates are Jewish?
22%
Of the 965 individual recipients of the Nobel Prize and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences between 1901 and 2023, at least 214 have been Jews or people with at least one Jewish parent, representing 22% of all recipients.
What percentage of Nobel prize winners were Christian?
65.4%
In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901-2000 about 65.4% of Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background.
What percentage of Nobel prize winners were Atheist?
10.5%
Nobel Prize who have self-identified as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, or otherwise nonreligious at some point in their lives. Many of these laureates earlier identified with a religion. In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 10.5% of all laureates.
What percentage of Nobel prize winners get their prize because their work conclude «god did it»
0.0%
@@luish1498 A better question ask is what percentage of Nobelists are atheist, because your belief has an impact on what you study. So in other words, atheists are stupid statistically speaking due to a low percentage score Nobelists.
Richard Dawkins…aka the Missing Link.
Disproving Noah’s ark doesn’t prove evolution.
Disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.
Where are the evidence?
All you need to do, is look. The evidence is there
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
Look at the evolution article on Wikipedia.
Try Google.
'There is more evidence for devolution than for evolution' - Derek Prince (Philosophy teacher at University of Cambridge)
'There is not the creative impulse necessary to make me believe in macroevolution' John Lennox (Physics teacher at Oxford University)
Nice argument from authority logical fallacies
@@drsatan7554 I don;t argue with people - because I need my strength to fight Satan.
@@militaryandemergencyservic3286 When you fight Satan don't forget to video it. You wouldn't want people to think you are delusional.
These aren’t even authorities lol. Why would you quote a philosopher and a physicist on biology?
@@septicwomb4394 they are cleverer than most people - and you don't need intelligence to buy into the lie of macroevolution.
150 years since Darwin and still not a shred of evidence for evolution .
Richard Dawkins never presents any evidence for evolution .
Dawkins is like a catcher on a losing baseball team .
He talks a good game , but nothing else .
2000 years after the bible and still not a shred of evidence for creation
countless Christian apologists and still no evidence for creation
There are hundreds and thousands of books and scientific peer-reviewed papers that all have evidence to support and back up the theory of evolution because you don't want to understand the science of evolution doesn't make it any less factual.
Takes a song and a dance to explain complex structures using random mutations and natural selection.
On the contrary, overly complex structures that are not fully optimised is precisely what can be expected from natural selection over billions of years. An all powerful designer with a clean slate would have done a lot better and we would hardly need to spend half our GDP on trying to remedy the many ways the human body can and does go wrong.
No song and dance. Just the passage of time.........a long long time!
Mutation is the key to evolution nothing stays the same really?
@@wayneparkinson4558 That is right - nothing stays the same because of random genetic drift, but natural selection keeps organisms from straying too far from forms that fit the particular environments an organism finds itself in.
@@wayneparkinson4558 You got it! Absolutely nothing stays the same. It just takes an awfully long time to change to something different, so if you are a young earth creationist, this is off limits to you.
P
So that is, the so called evidence for evolution?? Thank you Mr. Dawkins very much, for strengthen my faith 😂😂
MARK 16:18 SAYS CHRISTIANS CAN DRINK POISON.
AND YET EVERY CHRISTIAN HAS NO FAITH IN IT...... HOW ODD 🤒
Faith ? Because of fairy tales in religious books? what a source...
@@misterb6456 Perhaps this is all you can see with a blinded mind, how pitiful
@@succulentsfun I see. You are seeing the truth because you read religious fairy tales. Wow. I guess the floating, invisible man in the sky is talking to you too, genius?
@@misterb6456 That’s right, speaking of genius, who can beat a cousin of the banana 🍌🤣
😅Funny.
Dawkins is dead wrong about the reproducibility of radiometric dating.
No he is not. It is a staple dating method in science, and has been since 1905.
Nope, you are dead wrong about him being dead wrong.
@@ozowen5961 you and RD are plain slow-minded. He claims we got the universe from "literally nothing." Hey, show how that can be.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block
"The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally."
This fails in its basic premise. The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe. Explain how they apply outside our universe. Remember, you are talking about the conditions pre our universe. I await your usual insistence that you are right with no reason other than you cite laws of physics that we cannot insist will apply to this situation.
"One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable."
This is true. The physics also shows that we are in the very early stages of the universe. The state of total entropy is many, many trillions (a number that is frighteningly small for this situation) and energy will remain usable for trillions of years (again- a small number in this context) before it gets close to being at all unusable.
"It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things."
Scientists (not creationists) who are also believers follow the evidence. The evidence says we have no idea what preceded the Singularity.
It also says that there is a huge expanse of time before energy achieves entropy.
You have denied the first lot of evidence and misrepresented the second.
@@ozowen5961 "The laws of physics ONLY apply inside our universe."
It's your way of ignoring evidence. You can do it with anything you don't want. We have 2 + 2 = 4 but if you don't like that, you throw it out that it may equal something else outside the universe. It's lame but lame is what you are. Then....we don't have an outside until there is something there to be outside of. As I showed, we don't have that something that can come about on its own. There can't be something there without a cause. Law of Causality - 'There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause.' You just show how tiny your brain is over and over again. You want to ignore solid evidence and you have no way out of it. You have such an unsound mind, no amount of reasoning will change you, you want what you want despite the clear evidence and your lame excuses don't work.
Dawkins: Evolution is a fact.
Reality: ... which remains unproven.
The Cold Wind of Reality
We have no direct evidence for the existence or non-existence of a God.
There is, however, a mountain of indirect evidence - but indirect evidence, being subject to arbitration, allows one person to perceive the information differently to another (or even be dismissive of it).
Therefore, there can only be the assertion of a "belief" that is built upon indirect evidence for or against the existence of a creator - so the demand for direct evidence is presumptuous fallacy.
In short ... we are wasting our time trying to convince anyone of such a thing: especially when the scripture says we live by faith - and both atheists and theists have some semblance of faith.
The question is: which faith is correct and how should it be embraced?
Atheists have faith in science and mankind to self-govern - whereas theists have faith in the one who laid His life down to rule as a benevolent King.
This means we need to take a pragmatic look at the options on the table if we are to move forward with efficacy toward effective resolution.
The problem is: both atheists and theists are invested in their worldview - to a dogma of cognitive dissonance.
Atheists claim religion has been the driving force behind the evil we see in the world - whereas the theist perceive sin is the driving force.
They are both are correct - to a point - but neither are exemplifying their position when they start disparaging each other.
To make matters worse - neither are aware the scripture does not sanction religion and neither are aware sin is delusion.
The good news is: this can easily be broached if we break down the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil:
Tree = Source of information
Knowledge of Good = Accurate info
Knowledge of Evil = Inaccurate info
Partake = Digest and believe
Fruit = Ideas, beliefs etc
Sin = Delusion (spiritual death)
The scripture defines sin as missing the mark because it is the state of mind in which a person seeks to justify wicked behaviour; which then leads to the galvanising of hierarchy.
The scripture even confirms this by highlighting the introduction of sin would cause the stronger to rule over the weaker when God said, "Your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you."
The dictionary defines religion as: a belief in a superhuman controling power.
However, that is merely the semblance of a faith - because religion is an institution that has established hierarchy, using doctrines, that serve the interest of those within the hierarchy (including government).
This is how we know the scripture doesn't actually sanction religion.
Indeed ... the New Testament testifies to the fact Y'shua (Jesus) took issue with those who create religion.
... so we can all agree - religion is bad.
This means we only need to address the cause of delusion (sin) if we are to rectify the situation once and for all.
This is where science can, and should, take centre stage to establish correct understanding of reality - and our place in it.
Science is the process by which careful observation leads to the conclusion of analysis of information which, after formulating an idea into hypothesis or theory, is tested rigorously by experiment and peer review.
This is to say: the scientific method includes the process of disproof to ensure falsifiable theories (beliefs) are not idiosyncratic.
For this reason: a theory is considered a "provisional truth" because science is continually self-correcting in its pursuit of understanding as resources improve the quality of data that is assessed.
This mechanism allows science to castigate the vulgar and exemplify the intellectual - but science has developed a weakness for asserting indirect evidence as direct evidence to propagate favourable theories that create a ceiling on progress.
Science "should" use the scientific method to root out theories that are error: so it should never consider indirect evidence as direct evidence - because indirect evidence is subject to arbitration.
Mutation, for example, is direct evidence for adaptation and, at the same time, indirect evidence for transition.
This is because we have observed the genome to rearrange information and cause a living organism to look (slightly) different to its parents.
This is direct evidence for adaptation - because slight change is observable.
Science has never observed the genome to increase information and cause the living organism to become a different type.
This is indirect evidence for transition - because drastic change is not observable.
The moment science asserted mutation as direct evidence for transition - it became an idiosyncratic belief (delusion) for those who refuse to acknowledge the genome has never been observed to increase.
Then the argument begins with atheists citing rock strata as evidence for millions of years (which they back-up with unreliable dating methods) - while the theists cite rock strata as evidence for rapid formation by a flood (which they back-up with hydrological sorting experiments).
The point I'm making here is: we have come full circle - because indirect evidence is subject to arbitration.
Somewhere within that circle is the Word of God offering a warning to avoid anything that causes delusion - and science, having the noble cause of rooting out delusion, has become the very thing that causes delusion.
Perhaps I should conclude this article by offering a warning against embracing the delusional estate and encouraging everyone to embrace the eternal estate.
... but this article has already said enough for both atheist and theist to ponder.
My Best Wishes 💖 To Everyone
The Three Pillars
lnkd.in/e8NKKpb
Footnote: this article is dedicated to Richard Dawkins who coined the phrase "The Cold Wind Of Reality".
ME; LAUGHING
AS I LOOK AT A POODLE.......
A POODLE THAT EVOLVED FROM A WOLF.
@@Bless-the-Name "We have no direct evidence for the existence or non-existence of a God. "
JUST LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAME FOR LEPRECHAUNS.
FAIRY TALES ARE FUNNY THAT WAY.
🤣🤣😆😆🤣🤣 YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK AND PATHETIC.
Can you explain in evolutionary terms why African Americans have light skinned hands and feet but not on their tops of feet and hands.
The same difference is in whites, but is much less obvious.
not sure why tho.
maybe because you could generate more vitamin D when you expose your light skinned soles and palms to the sun?
i dont know.
but palms and soles of all people produce less melanin then rest of their skin
i think its the same with other apes
Because the palms and soles of the feet have an additional, very strong, tough and wear-resistant layer of skin - they have five layers, rather than the four present elsewhere. It is there to protect the hands and feet from friction. This additional layer of skin also provides additional protection from the sun's ultraviolet because it is very dense, therefore these areas do not require such a high concentration of the dark pigment found elsewhere that acts as a protection built in sunscreen. Moreover, the soles and palms are generally not exposed to the sun as much as (say) the face. A very tanned person will generally have pale palms and soles, because these p[arts of the body are turned away from the sun.
Doesn't explain in evolutionary terms. Darwin posited humans are exempt from natural selection. We choose for other reasons our partners.e.g. physical attraction.
Where in your explanation do you account for the difference, by human selection; the differences in in soles and palms?
@@2mesense It explains perfectly. Humans did not need to evolve far skins on their hands and feet, because those areas were already protected from UV - when our ancestors had fur, they did not need dark skins - but they did need the additional protective layer on their hands and feet, largely to protect those parts from wear and friction. When humans lost their furb, they evolved dark skins against the sun: but not on their hands and feet, it wasn;t necessary.
_Where in your explanation do you account for the difference, by human selection; the differences in in soles and palms_
What difference? Obviously because humans have been walking only on their feet for many generations, and only using their hands for tools and so on, for a similar time, palms and soles will diverge a bit. But in terms of why dark skinned people have pale palm and sole skin - the reason is the same. Protection by dark pigment was not required, so it did not evolve.
@@2mesensegod must've created the difference in soles and palms.
for no other reason but to confuse us
18:14 "What we do not see in the fossil record... and this is the important point...we do not see a single fossil in the wrong place."... So we are not looking at the Cambrian explosion then? And ignoring the fact that this was a problem that Darwin knew about and thought might be filled in later. Still waiting for those Cambrian pre-cursors.
Your ignorance shines through. Richard is talking about chronology, you are talking about discovery.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect The Cambrian explosion remains a problem for Darwin, whether Dawkins wants to consider it or not.
The Evolution Delusion
substantiate your claim
It's ironic that you say that, when it's you that is delusional, or just plain stupid.
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." (II Peter 2:1-2)
Oh hey! I love this game, post meaningless BS and pretend it has magical powers.
I raise you Numbers 31:17-18....... let's kill hoes and kidnap virgins....... will you join me?
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18
I can't wait to see what verse you respond with cause there's plenty more where that came from!
'The sun rose on the same tidy front gardens and lit up the brass number four on the Dursleys' front door; it crept into their living room, which was almost exactly the same as it had been on the night when Mr. Dursley had seen that fateful news report about the owls'. The Vanishing Glass 2:2
Three dimensions: Ideational; Energy or force; and the grossly physical. Evolution takes place in all of them and in their replication; the human form. Denying all except the physical, gross matter as origin is a bottom up rather than a top down of evolution. The correct, and rational, precession is devolution, evolution, involution: a circular progression. Evolution becomes linear on the ground: the worms eye view. Its origin in space: the bird’s eye view. That space, the heavens, played no role in evolution is nineteenth century thinking.
look a clown like me
Where did the propensity of peahens to favour peacocks with big tail feathers, & thus promote sexual selection for that, come from ? There is a good answer but I haven't heard it it yet.
Bigger tail feathers = greater energy cost to male, but = a more visible display = higher chance of mating = gene survival = job done* = positive feedback, (a hallmark of sexual selection via mate choice) leading to a runaway process where a courtship signal becomes more and more
extreme.
*without any intention, of course.
Size of display has to be the key, else the smaller (but more active and/or more gaudy) immature males would get the girls.
@@alanthompson8515 Ok so bigger tail feathers makes them more noticeable given existing peahen genes, no need for a mutation.
If a mutation arose causing peahens to be repelled by excessive plumage then presumably that wouldn't be selected because size of display is such an important signal of longevity. Unless that is: an alternative, less-expensive, signal for longevity emerges, such as grey beard ?
Its an exercise in health . It takes a strong bird to waste so much enry gust on bling .
@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 It takes a strong but very stupid bird
Dude, when you were 6 weeks in the womb, you have a milk line ridge where a whole lot of nipples were forming- it's called The mammalian milk line. You started to grow a tail. That bit of tissue in the corner of your eye is third eyelid tissue, just as dogs and cats have. Your vagus nerve branch that goes yo your voice box, doesn't directly go there from your brain, but instead loops down, under you aorta, then comes up.
Design sucks eh? And that's just a few examples.
Isn't that nice? They've devoted a channel to the guy who said....
"A little pedophilia isn't bad." 🤢🤮 He said that publicly.
There is no depth to the wickedness of the Atheist.
Careful there sunshine. The scandal of ongoing paedophilia in churches (not at all just the Catholic church) makes that particular assertion reflect badly on you as well. And please don't retreat to a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
@@ozowen5961 - But common sense will tell anyone, even an Atheist without it, that you don't HIDE pedophiles like the Catholic church did and does. Any church, no matter what is denomination, would not only BAN such an one but give them over to the authorities. Jesus said in several of the Gospels "Anyone who is brutal to children should be thrown into the depths of the ocean with a large stone tied around his neck".
I guess that doesn't bode well for those who encourage pedophilia. I'm betting that's not his only wicked crime anyway. He's a very hateful and wicked man.
@@redfaux74
Well common sense fails.
In my country we had a Royal Commission into institutional child abuse and discovered it to be covered up in many churches.
The Salvation Army had a ring of pedophiles that auctioned children off for sexual abuse.
No church escaped.
A major Pentecostal church is dealing with cover ups od child abuse right now.
So, if you trust common sense then you will not be right.
Or, think about it differently, humans are fallible, sinful and often can be wicked indeed. Churches always have a power structure and pedophiles gravitate to power and control. They often live double lives and hide their tracks.
Churches have always been great places to hide wickedness in. They allow for powerful control of members and abuse and scapegoating.
Why would pedophiles not be in churches?
And the culture of trusting leaders because they are Christian leaders is a trap.
I for one am openly skeptical in my churches. And my ministers know I will challenge them and call BS. I refute the culture of subjection.
@@ozowen5961- Common sense never fails. I consider myself to be a skeptic. Trust must be earned. But keep in mind, the standard God gives of being brutal to a child (or sexual abuse, rape) is given the death penalty. Without exception.
To say that sexual sin cannot be in any denomination goes completely against common sense. To my knowledge no other church has openly hid and moved their perverts like the Catholic church. We expose and punish them permanently. They should be jailed and prosecuted to full to extent of the law. No exception ever.
@@redfaux74
I just gave ypu a specific example of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse.
The Salvation Army is a much admired protestant church, and they were certainly involved in covered up paedophile rings
The same was found in all the major churches, so all you are doing is denial. That is not common sense.
A very boring talk with no evidence but pure asumptipns.
Yahweh is just a myth.
No, the myth is you actually think. He believes we got the universe by "literally nothing" and you can't give evidence either for a natural creation.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block
And what did god make the universe out of?
@@eddyeldridge7427 there was nothing to make it out of. Nothing in the natural realm existed then. That's why it had to be supernatural. I kind of mentioned that and showed that already.
@@2fast2block
So thinking the universe came from nothing is silly. So we should believe what you believe: that the universe came from nothing because magic.
Do you not see how silly that sounds?
Now realize how much worse it is when science doesn't say the universe came from nothing. That's a lie theists came up with.
@@eddyeldridge7427 you believe it happened magically because you have NO evidence it could have happened that way. Your whole empty life is in hopes that magic did.
Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
I dated a rock once. Well she might get as well have been.
[324] Pete Conrad@ray salmon so you've established yourself that at least one historian thinks that. I don't, so what's the point of that comment?
Comments on
Richard Dawkins - The Evidence For Evolution- The Greatest Show On Earth
80 Ryan McDougald The Smithsonian lnstitution's Department of Anthropology has offered the following official statement pertaining to the historical reliability of the OT:.. the historical books of the OT are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work." Not only does archaeology confirm that the Bible is historically accurate but professional archaeologists use the Bible as a guide in their work. The great Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck, who is known to be one of the top three archaeologists in history, has stated the following: "No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single, properly understood Biblical statement."
Glueck died in 1971. Do you have anyone more recent? Or do you rely on older commentaries so as to avoid contradiction?
Let me help you.
Camels were not in Israel at the times reported in the Bible.
There was no global flood.
Some of Glueck's own discoveries have been shown to not be as he thought.
There is sod all evidence for the Exodus.
@@ozowen5961
ill bet you looked that up on Wikipedia ..
@@raysalmon6566
Nope. I was looking up something entirely different when I came across the description of Glueck's discovery of King Solomon's mines and how that was since shown to be wrong.
It was, as I recall, in a Smithsonian article. It was quite praising of Gluek, but that doesn't mean he is always right.
@@ozowen5961
i have not read any to Glueck's work
Francesca Stavrakopoulou* and W F Albright are my latest
any Archeologist is going to have opinions that will later be verified or dismissed most of this is due to inadequate study of known history of their inquiry
there actually is more secular Archeologists going to biblical sites (minimumists) than there is church sponsored ones