Storytelling Of Science: Richard Dawkins
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 04. 2013
- Richard Dawkins speaking about mimicry in Cuckoo eggs at the ASU Origins Project: Storytelling Of Science talk which also included Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, Brian Greene, Tracy Day, and Neal Stephenson.
Full talk available here:
Part 01 - • The Great Debate: THE ...
Part 02 - • The Great Debate: THE ...
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Absolutely fascinating. Richard Dawkins is a Fantastic educator.
Indeed he is.
I show this to my students. What an amazing story and a man of Science!
We need him more than ever. Good for you.
@@JustinLHopkins I am sure evolution is true for those believing in it. It is definitely the only answer that atheists could give themselves in order to rationalize their atheism. Always bizarre tat there should be a theist sect of evolutionism. Pretending that God would have created his creatures using an evolutionary process and natural selection would be an insult to his intelligence. You could use fossils to fit in just about any fictitious evolutionary fairytales you could conceive.
Makes me so emotional everytime I listen to it.. it's simply the tone with which he speaks it's soooo beautiful. Will make anyone fall in love with Biology
@UCsDLrUU3Fdwv6v_-b4Iiz7g What Dawkins is preaching is more like voodoo science. Atheist Dawkins is conceding that the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and goes on claiming that smearing the process over billions of years would solve the issue, a solution which is no not founded in any way on real science. The pseudo-scientist adds to the nonsense when he claims that creatures like the honeybee would present only an illusion of being intelligently designed. “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Dawkins calls that hogwash the poetry of science. It makes the 🤮 more palatable.
@@piertinence what a waste of time and energy
@@menakamanickaraj I agree. Darwinist evangelist Dawkins wasted his whole life preaching trash science entered on his atheistic conviction. brought the ridiculous concept that all our organs in our body, and all the creatures in the creation (like elephants, giraffes, tigers, owls, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc.,) could only be designoid objects only presenting an illusion of being intelligently designed, also implying that they could not be the creation of an intelligent entity. The quack scientist made himself filthy rich preaching that nonsensical BS. 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮 "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." atheist Dawkins. Obviously the darwinist evangelist is not even presenting an illusion of making sense
Yep..i hated biology as a student and this makes me regret that.
I watched all the talk and this is, for me, the best story. Incredible Richard.
I watch this video when I am bored..
This story never stop being fascinating
Such an epic collection of human beings
I love how the other people go up there and tell personal stories about how they got into their fields, or maybe some historical fact about scientists, but Dawkins just tells a story about birds and it is by far the most interesting of the group. Nature will always stretch our imaginations and pique our interests more than any personal anecdote every could.
I just wanted to thank you for teaching me that it's "piqueing one's interest" rather than "peaking one's interest". I've never seen the phrase written and always thought it was the latter.
World class teacher
I never thought I would have a political compass that looked like that when I first heard this. But now I do, maybe a little further right than you, but I'm not a ghoul. Fare thee well my brother.
@@user-vd6ec7kx8x ruin
I keep coming back to this. It’s beautiful
This gave me goosebumps. It was spectacular.
No doubt that Darwinian evangelist Dawkins is the most charismatic propagator of a Darwinian evolutionary creation.
Atheist Dawkins is conceding that the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and goes on claiming that smearing the process over billions of years would solve the issue, a solution which is no not founded in any way on real science. The pseudo-scientist adds to the nonsense when he claims that creatures like the honeybee would present only an illusion of being intelligently designed. “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Dawkins calls that hogwash the poetry of science. It makes the 🤮 more palatable.
Richard is a magnificent teacher. The best I ever seen 😍
Fascinating how genetics over time evolve for different purpose.
Awesome, I’d like to find more like this!
So cool! Man that was awesome!
I'm a Christian, but honestly I love listening to Atheists like Dawkins speak. SO intelligent
So intelligent, but you choose to go with the other? You can be intelligent too. Dare I say, have FAITH in yourself.
@@wooyyeah I find it distasteful when people coerce / suggest others to follow something they believe in. I mean, why can't someone be religious and a believer of science at the same time? Take the best of both sides?
@@hyperion3704 exactly!
i understand that richard might have said XX and XY for bird sex determination out of simplicity but in actual fact in birds they use a ZZ ZW mechanism
Maybe he used xx xy just to make things more simple to understand for an audience? No sense in getting lost in simantics
fascinating topic
What a brilliant science story ....!
You mean what a brilliant science fiction story. Give it billions of years and it will make it possible is not an argument supported by real science.. Here is a poetic account given by atheist Dawkins that claims that “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Dawkins calls that hogwash the poetry of science. It makes the 🤮 more palatable.
Blew my mind !
one of my favourite stories, great way to bring evolution to life
Fascinating!
Isn't nature wonderful ? Yes, professor undoubtedly it is
@Darwinism is a form of naturalistic creationism, so you are a creationist belonging to a modern paganistic cult which is investing nature or forces of nature with some divine creative properties. Baal and Thor and especially Gaia (the goddess of the creation in Greek mythology), is especially related to the myth of natural section.. "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Darwinist atheist Dawkins
@@piertinence Everything will be well, my friend. Trust in your version of god. Or do you need others to believe in your god too, to feel comfortable about it? And what you say about evolution just demonstrates that you didnt learn about how it works, of course.
If you want to criticize something, you will have to learn about it properly, im afraid.
If you want to be taken seriously, that is. :) Have a good day, my friend!
@@billcarson818 In order to observe light sensitive cells growing into eyeballs you have to get deep into an alternate reality. There are many imaginary scenarios about the evolutionary creation of the eye and other organs, The gods of evolution have a lot of imagination,
@@piertinence Alternate reality? Yeah, you are in an alternate reality. In your fantasy world. Again, If you want to be taken seriously, you'd have to learn about evolution.
Nobody will take you seriously when you criticize evolution WITHOUT even knowing what evolution is and how it works. 😂
Is that really such a difficult concept for you to grasp? 😂
Either you approach the topic with honesty (arent the religious claiming to be honest?), and learn more about evolution and how it really works, or continue to be treated like a child, when you attempt to criticize something you know nothing about.
Stop parroting something you heard a religious salesman say and actually learn about the topic yourself. Its not that hard. Try to think for yourself and learn for yourself, instead of repeating what you hear.
Its not so hard to do research nowadays, my friend.
And then you can form a qualified opinion about it.
this was epic..hte best segment or me...but it was all gold
It's amazing how evolution created the information found in genes, and by it,it evoled emotions,intelligence etc...
I'm too stoned to get this now...
+Meisha you need to get stoned a bit more to get this.
Yumpie Oo ;-)
Great teacher
You mean, Great story teller Give it billions of years and it will make it possible is not an argument supported by real science.. Here is a poetic account given by atheist Dawkins that claims that “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Dawkins calls that hogwash the poetry of science. It makes the 🤮 more palatable.
Dawkins, another extremely intelligent person. Fascinating perspective. 🐦
Oh, man, dig his tie - absolutely fantastic 😂
Bravos
dawkings could win a award for playing a Villain roll in a movie. with his british accent
"Isn't nature wonderful" - my thoughts exactly.
@MokoneMokone Darwinism is a form of naturalistic creationism, so you are a creationist belonging to a modern paganistic cult which is investing nature or the forces of nature with some divine creative properties. Baal and Thor and especially Gaia (the goddess of the creation in Greek mythology), is especially related to the myth of natural section.. "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Darwinist atheist Dawkins
@@piertinence Everything will be well, my friend. Trust in your version of god. Or do you need others to believe in your god too, to feel comfortable about it? And what you say about evolution just demonstrates that you didnt learn about how it works, of course.
If you want to criticize something, you will have to learn about it properly, im afraid.
If you want to be taken seriously, that is. :) Have a good day, my friend!
let the Englishman talk it just seems more intelligent.
It didn't just seem or sound more intelligent. It was. If you watch the complete version, he was the only one who talked specifically about science, while the others sort of told a more personal story. I'm not Brit, btw.
wooyyeah I think the whole thing wasn’t meant to follow a specific direction. It was just a general talk between with well educated people
@@MrPancake777 Dawkins is doing awesomely for a man who is regarding his own brain as a designoid object presenting only an illusion of being intelligently designed, programmed and engineer. One must admit that his control of the English language is just phenomenal. "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." atheist Dawkins
@@piertinence Everything will be well, my friend. Trust in your version of god. Or do you need others to believe in your god too, to feel comfortable about it? And what you say about evolution just demonstrates that you didnt learn about how it works, of course.
If you want to criticize something, you will have to learn about it properly, im afraid.
If you want to be taken seriously, that is. :) Have a good day, my friend!
Every time Richard appears I am hoping to see seeing Hitch also..
Dawkins for PM
endless complexity with the most simplest tools and materials... 4 base pairs
1:59 "Shut up, boring guy. I am the best."
Cmon Neil isn't like that. He's a nihilist and astronomer. He doesn't think the universe revolves around him.
Dudes a stud.
I know i'll be slashed for my seemingly innocuous comment but their unwarranted certitude in the face of ever changing science and new discoveries discerns me.
genius
Creation narrative in Genesis is composed of two strands: one describes the process of creation starting with "Let there be light...", the second narrative culminates with the Seventh Day Shabbat rest, these two strands are intertwined together as melody and rhythm in piece of music.
"And it was evening and morning..." is the rhythm section, its purpose is to introduce the 7th day Shabbat, this rhythm section does not impose earthly 24hr time on the creation narrative.
It is unnecessary for Christians to insist on 6 x 24hr creation, but we are to maintain that all creation is "very good", it emerges perfectly formed from the moment of its appearance.
Fossil evidence confirms that creation appeared perfectly formed, there is no evidence of evolution from so called lower forms, there is adaptation, but there is no species transition.
Hebrew word for "day" does not necessarily mean 24 hr earthly time, the meaning allows for long time creation consistent with scientific observation.
Crucial point to defend is that creation is "very good" from the get go, and does not evolve across species boundaries.
Actually, my interpretation of the 24 hour period is that it is literally one day for God, but since our perception of time is different from God. We end up dating one day to a million years.
Here, take a look at the fifth day, where God made animals. We had the Cambrian Explosion where animals randomly, to this day we still don't have an answer why.
Yes, i definitely think evolution is a futile theory. One, the fossil record shows zero evidence for huge changes, failure to acknowledge this is just intellectual dishonesty. And two, the origin of genetic code cannot have arose from evolution.
@@IssyFishyy the day of cessation that is the 7th day Saturday is of cosmic significance, it is introduced at creation, and it still is that very same seventh day.
Everything will be well, my friend. Trust in your version of god. Or do you need others to believe in your god too, to feel comfortable about it? And what you say about evolution just demonstrates that you didnt learn about how it works, of course.
When you say there is no evidence of evolution from a lower form, then you didnt look for it the last 50 years or you are just parroting what someone said about it(let me guess, a religious guy?). Try to do your own research, my friend.
If you want to criticize something, you will have to learn about it properly, im afraid.
If you want to be taken seriously, that is. :) Have a good day, my friend!
@@IssyFishyy Everything will be well, my friend. Trust in your version of god. Or do you need others to believe in your god too, to feel comfortable about it? And what you say about evolution just demonstrates that you didnt learn about the evidence we have and how it works, of course.
If you want to criticize something, you will have to learn about it properly, im afraid.
If you want to be taken seriously, that is. :) Have a good day, my friend!
Can’t start your premise with knowing the universe, we know as much as ants. Thats how much progress we’ve made.
Then you obviously know nothing about our scientifical advance. If we know anything, we know more than ants. I bet ants don't know about quantum physics, for starters.
@@late8641 Do you know why gravity, magnetism, or any other force occurs? Do you know why light acts the way it does? Ants know about the same
@@bobimus I do know. Or the human race knows would be more accurate. Every fundamental interaction has a particle causing it. Magnetism is caused by photons, strong interaction is caused by gluons and weak interaction is caused by W- and Z-bosons. But I think it's hilarious that you try to appeal to small gaps in our understanding of the natural world. We don't know how life began, therefore we know as much as ants? Although we know more or less about everything else. Great logic there.
@@late8641 I had no idea magentism was caused by light. How does that work?
My point being that you can look at different parts of the universe, whether you're the ant or a human, you can look at the stars or look at things on the quantum level, but until there's an answer to why, or when you have other universes to compare this one to, i don't think you know that much in comparison.
@@bobimus Exactly, you have no idea about something and are too lazy to research it so you assume humans, like you, know as much as an ant. Or maybe that's just how you evolved, with the intelligence level of an ant.
What a privileged audience!
Is that your pastime or something?
So. Evolution. Cool, Rich.
Yes, its very interesting. I recommend learning about it.
As Dawkins said the Y chromisone is unique and gives the women koo koos whatever way you spell it the speciality to change certain things imagine if we could remove a Y chromisones from a male human before birth or even as he is living and we could transport the Y chromisone to the female human before birth or while she is living imagine they could access all powers to the brain or even more that would be amazing it could even....Dare i say it...Change the worlddddd haha
It doesn't work like that. If you put Y in female, which is XX, it will become XXY. XXY will develop as a male with Klinefelter syndrome. The brain powers of XXY individual are not great, neither are his physical abilities.
Ристу Георгиев true but was a good theory haha man i wrote this 2 months ago forgor completely about it i almost didnt understand what you even said there lol, yeah for sure maybe wouldnt work but maybe in time we will develope something allowing our brains to develope into an extremely powerful thing by that time i wont have any brain cells as i fight and every punch i get is alot of brain cells leaving 😂😂
Yeah but the Y chromosome perfoms the same function in our species, that is why we got things like Paternal lineage being important in our cultures, evolution was telling us something like "a Y chromosome is more prone to mutation than an X chromosome, but has fewer potential expressions, so less things to mutate each generation" so the Cuckoo bird, "decided" in its evolutionary history somewhere that being able to have the one who lays the egg being the one which carries the location specific mutations (all of the cuckoos in an area which don't have the right mutation have their eggs removed from the nest remember) and for the one which potentially fertilizes many eggs, to possess the more stable coding for wings, body, brain etc. In our species and pretty much every species, we do the opposite, because we aren't optimized for parasitism in that way. Our females have double X so they can refine their traits that are being selected for without too much risk of a poor mutation, and males have the variation, but the limited expressions thing kicks in.
Basically the conclusion is that we, humans, have to have males who are adapted to a particular environment fertilizing eggs also adapted to a similar environment to increase the chances of those commonly selected for X chromosome traits being expressed, and as many copies of Y chromosome mutations that are helpful as possible.
If you think about that, you get a patriarchal and religious worldview pretty quick I think and it's perfectly in line with evolutionary thinking such as what Dawkins is so beautifully illuminating with his story.
1110 1011000 i agree on what you are saying.can u elaborate for humans why patriarchy is there?
Why the nasty reply ? All i asked was why you leave gaps inbetween words, and was wondered why you would not express your thrilling experience by using an exclamation point. You could of just said, the gap was a mistake, and you chose not to use an exclamation point. That's all, instead you chose the evil way Travis ! if that's really your name ?
All of them did at various levels; His story was definitely great only problem was that he used too much science Jargon which is fine for a lecture. But for such a broad audience who does not know words like Gene pool, host species and specific scientific names of birds
If someone did not know those basic terms especially with his descriptive nature, then they don't deserve the opportunity to listen to him. I don't think the audience was there for an Arianna grande concert.
@@yanceyboyz Exactly, I think people nowadays just don't try to think anymore, they just want everything to be as dumbed down as possible so they have to put up zero effort at all to understand. This isn't just seen in science, but music and art too, everything is so obvious it gets boring if you think about it, there is nothing for a person to interpret for themselves.
@@yanceyboyz I dont think thats a very wise attitude. Everyone starts somewhere, but we should be interested in a literate population and should encourage them to learn. "not deserving" is emotional nonsense.
Not at all.
Bullshit and he knows it
You should learn how to form an argument and learn about the topic, before you talk. If you want to be taken more seriously than a kindergarten child, that is. :)
@@billcarson818 look who's talking about arguments XD XD
@@primeminister1040 I dont need an argument to respond to a comment that contains zero arguments and basically just says "he is wrong!". Any child can say that. 😂
Learn how to argue properly and come up with an argument, if you want to be taken seriously, my friend.
And while you are at it, learn about the topic before you attempt to criticize it. You understand the concept, right?
Learning about the topic >>>>> Knowing about the topic >>>> Having the tools to criticize it.
Not learning about the topic >>>>> No tools to criticize it, since you dont even know what you are criticizing. Simple, isnt it?
Expecting arguments as a response to him, while he doesnt provide one single argument or anything close to that to begin with. 😂 Dont make it so easy on yourself, my friend. Dont be so lazy.
So learn! Instead of just parroting in your mind what you heard some religious fraud say. Try to think for yourself, try to learn for yourself. Try to be an independent thinker and not a sheep. But for that you will have to do your own proper research first. Listening to as many sides as possible (honestly) and then you can make up your mind.
@@billcarson818 the burden of proof is on this old fart called Dawkins since he's making some magical claims about a long distant past we know nothing of. Duh
God inspires his creation
Which one? Zeus? Ra? Thor?
That awkward moment when one talks about God and ends praising 'NATURE'!
Juma Nassib that awkward moment when trolling is no more funny...
In your dreams maybe, my friend.
There is no god but GOD......and prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is the last and final messenger..........
No proof for either.
@@foreverbooked2964 u r a doll....u r a man there is no proof either....cz i don't see u......hi doll.....
@@3_merazulislam143 what drink are you on dude? Try to make some sense while replying. I am a person. Not a doll.
And the fact remains. There is no proof for either God or the Prophet
@@3_merazulislam143 besides, a doll is non living. A doll won't be able to type on a phone. Ergo, I am a human.
a liked it.....i didn't see u....but u r a person.....bcz,sign......that u r replying,u have sense.....this sign indicating that u r a human being but i never seen u and will..never see u....but u r a human being.......bcz of ur sign.........isn't the whole creation is the sign of the ALMIGHTY.....we will never be able to describe HIM by our 1.5 kg tiny brain......i will give u all elements of a single fly.....u and the whole world will not be able to create a single deadbody of a fly......GOD created everything........u r a disbeliever.....i'm a beliver.....Allah(God) says"say the disbeliever that ur belief/lifestyle is your and our beliefs/lifestyle is our"........so,u don't need to reply again.......best wishes for u❤️
Nothing ‘wonderful’ about baby birds being killed before they ever hatch by baby cookos , quite the opposite. It highlights some of the cruelty of nature, which I fear our Godless prof Dawkins loves to dwell on.
Nevertheless, it was eloquently explained.
Nature is neither 'cruel' or kind. It is simply indifferent. Cruel is a human descriptive title place on just about anything.
Humans are the only species on earth that actively seeks out other humans to kill. There, now you can correctly call that,..'cruel'.
What you call cruel nature calls the food chain. We'd all be dead without it.
You are personifying nature and appealing to you own irrelevant human morality. Nature doesn't give a shit if it's "cruel" , because nature just....is.
In Dawkins' case, it's the storytelling of pseudoscience and an over-active imagination.
You should learn about a topic, before you talk. If you want to be taken more seriously than a kindergarten child, that is. :)
Isn't God great?
Depends which one......some of those ancient Greek and eygptian god's were brutal.....
You mean allah? Or Vishnu? Or Athena?
How can someone spend so much time taking about nothing? I guess that’s why he’s a professional and only focuses on religion.
Why the fuck is this guy on a science panel? He studies religion, not science
That.....was a biology speech....it had nothing to do with religion. Maybe you're unaccustomed to hearing people speak directly with facts and prefer the grey area of interpretation that religion dwells in. You would have no idea if you're following the correct version of christinity, let alone the correct religion. If you were to be religious, your religion is pre selected by your parents and/or based on geographic location.
Name the last time two Christians decided the moment their child was born, that they would raise it as a Muslim............... Ah yes, that doesn't happen. Pre selected brain washing.
You seem to be butthurt from a debate when he crushed one of your religious clowns, i guess? He is a evolutionary biologist, my friend. Your tantrum wont change thatt, im afraid.
Not the most intelligent speech. None of these people seem to answer the wise questions. Where are the memories stored. Don't say answers like brain. Where in the nerve Cell? what writes the memory, deletes it? What is the operator, processor, or mind that reads the memory? A book doesnt book a book, does It?
A god doesn't god a God does it? By your own logic a god would have to have a memory to remember how to create humans. Believing in living cells retaining information (it's proven, just look at eye colour) is just cutting out the middle man (in this case an invisible dude in the sky).
Sheep dogs naturally round sheep.
Puppies naturally paddle their feet if you hold them above water.
Everything is genetics.
You are demonstrating that you have no idea how evolution works. You know DNA right? It doesnt sound like your questions are honest (arent the religious always claiming to be honest?), but if they are honest questions, I really recommend you to learn about evolution in detail, then you will get answers to all your questions! :)
And of course if you dont learn about it, you cant really criticize it. You have to know the topic to criticize it, im afraid. If you want to be taken more seriously than a kindergarten child, that is. :)