Richard Dawkins: Darwin and the (im)possible evolution of the eye (Revelation TV + NL/eng subs)
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- Fragment uit een interview op een evangelical TV-zender waarin Dawkins reageert op de kwestie: 'hoe kan ooit een oog ontstaan door evolutie?' Darwin had dit zelf immers ook al als tegenwerping opgeworpen tegen de idee van "evolutie door natuurlijke selectie" (ttz: retorisch als captatio benevolentiae)... Heldere uiteenzetting.
Fragment from an interview: Howard Conder (Revelation TV) confronts Richard Dawkins with the famous observation: "'Darwin himself did wonder how natural selection could account for the coming into being of the eye".
Revelation TV is a UK television channel. To situate it in the world of evangelical christianity: www.revelationtv.com/about/statement_of_faith
Of all the organs the evolution of the eye is so well understood that it doesn't make sense to try and argue it anymore. Creationists don't seem to understand just how much has been learned since Darwin's time.
This has been the best explanation I've encountered so far. Intriguing yet very complex subject, thanks.
THANKS a lot for the English subtitles.
I'm a zoology graduate who studied cephalopod eyes, the way dawkins explains this to this man is a genuine privilege , and he completely just dismisses it and interrupts him with, well what if I need a piss
not sure if u defend evolution guys? even infront of the fact that the inventor of the theory himself realize it was a fraud? asking because am looking people to believe which defend dinosaurs and monkey-ape.
@@flatearthPL not sure what you mean here my guy. Inventor of the theory of evolution realised it was fraudulent?
The interviewer probably has the IQ of cephalopods, no offense to cephalopods...
@@toad33332 Citiation needed bro.
Ruchard Dawkin's video in explaining the evolution of the eye is filled with holes, raising more questions than anything else such as how did the eye evolved on the head, why not more than 2 eyes around the back of the head, why the eye did not evolve on other parts of the body, why not different sizes, etc... (czcams.com/video/2X1iwLqM2t0/video.html)
This man would defend 2 + 2 = 5, if it was claimed to be so in the bible. Despite laying out in front of him, say, five pennies and grouping them into a pile of two pennies and another of three to show how together they make five. He would still dispute the outcome.
From what I've seen, Dawkins doesn't try to disprove the bible but the obviously wrong parts. For example, the Adam and Eve (and the whole Genesis) is so obviously incorrect that you have to *ignore* loads of clearly visible evidence in the world to keep believing it.
If you selectively ignore all the parts of the world that would clash with your understading, sure, it's easy to believe. If you instead try to include all the information you can see you'll pretty quickly find that what Dawkins is saying (as a whole, he does mistakes too) is clearly *more correct.* The *scientific method* that Dawkins is trying to push is to keep using the best available explanation (called "theory" in natural sciences which is not the same thing as "theory" in common speak) and trying to improve that theory.
For an undisputed example, Newton figured out how gravity works in general (published in 1686 but probably invented earlier) and all the stuff that Newton included in his theory and calculus *was enough* to get man on the the moon and back. (Literally! The calculations that Apollo program used were done using the formula that Newton invented). On the other hand, the improved (more accurate) theory that Einstein came up at the start of 1900s was the *minimum* the get the GPS system working. That's because getting GPS to work *requires* knowledge about time dilation which is not something that Newton was aware of. The important thing to understand is that the theory that Einstein came up with did not disprove the old information but improved the accuracy.
Scientific method is about constantly improving *the previously best known theory.* Religion is about religiously (pun intended) keeping hold of the old text/rules/stories no matter how much conflicting information we can found around us. If somebody could show how even a single thing in the bible better explains the world than the scientific theories we have, all the atheists would switch to that theory *for that single thing.* If the bible has one correct detail somewhere, it doesn't make rest of the book any more valid. And as a result, *you don't see scientific people trying to defend the whole book as is.* And the reason scientific people are often atheists or agnostics is that the more information you have, the lesser the space left for a god or any other supernatural being to control is getting.
And as the equation 2 + 2 = 4 matches the surrounding world much better than 2 + 2 = 5, I'd bet Dawkins would defend the former no matter where it were first published. The source of the information is not important - the important part is does it match with observable universe.
@@MikkoRantalainen Generally, very good.
Man might provide a space for God in the same way he provides space for pixies and elves or astrology or a belief in ghosts. No matter, it is still simply a silly notion. Not the antiquity of religion nor its popularity nor its frequency of affirmation, makes it anything but a childish story from the late neolithic age.
There are two meanings of the word 'theory' in both popular use and scientific use. Firstly it means a proposed, yet-to-be-proven hypothesis for an explanation of something we experience, measure or observe. Secondly it means an explanation - usually proven or ratified by measurement, , experiment, observation, logic or mathematics, of some phenomenon that we experience.
No doubt the bible has some useful homilies and 'rustic wisdom' for a simple man in a simple world, but then so do the fairy tales of Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen and so too the fables of Aesop. The bible is nothing more.
He has no burden to disprove a claim, he has evidence for his claim
I'm not defending creationism, but your comment became extremely ironic last year when the Dawkins-worshipping crowd decided to spend weeks trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 5 on social media as a defense against criticism of their blatantly anti-Science stances on sex and gender.
Some of us are more evolved than others. This guy is still bumping around in the dark.
Bruh you skipped the principle of slow evolution
The first individuals of a specie will have a soft sensitive useless spot
Wich mean that any individual trying to develop an eyeis a genetic dead end
So it's impossible to have an eye by evolution since the first individual isn't accepted or selected
@@hassanlabyad4082 You missed Dawkins' point about being able to detect night and day is already a useful ability. Once a light-sensitive spot happens on a large creature, an eye will form because it's more effective to have an eye than not.
@@efulmer8675
Do you know how many years would it take to get such light sensing cell?
@@hassanlabyad4082 I don't know the exact number. No one knows the exact number, and certainly not you. But it's a long time. Whether it's hundreds of thousands of years or tens of millions it does not matter the exact number because that's a pittance compared to the length of time multicellular life has been around and smaller still to the length of time that life has existed on the Earth. The current record oldest fossil found is a stromatolite from 3.4 billion years ago. But an eye could form fairly rapidly (millions of years still) because the ability to understand one's surroundings clearly is a big leap forward in figuring out how to survive.
@@efulmer8675
Do you know yes or no
You litteraly gave evidenceless hypothesis
Do you expect me to take you seriously?
Imagine if our court systems went on faith and not evidence!!!... what a mess that would be!!
Why does Richard Dawkins waste his time with fools? It just gives ignorance a platform. How did this man get on the programme? A curious 5-year-old would contribute more.
Richard is the one who came on the program, the other guy is actually the host. I think it’s a good thing that he came on the show to expose creationists to evolutionary thinking. Who knows, maybe he even changed some minds with this.
Bruh you skipped the principle of slow evolution
The first individuals of a specie will have a soft sensitive useless spot
Wich mean that any individual trying to develop an eyeis a genetic dead end
So it's impossible to have an eye by evolution since the first individual isn't accepted or selected
@@hassanlabyad4082 Nonsense. Simply, childish nonsense.
Imagine spending your life becoming an expert in a particular field and conducting countless experiments over your life just for some idiot in CZcams comments to say "He's making it up as he goes along".
YES
@@hassanlabyad4082 Dawkins is an idiot.
Your statement is idiotic at best.
Why the eye evolved? Easy. Because it provided a selective advantage for survival. If you're asking how a proto eye evolved like the flatworm's eyespot there's plenty of literature on that as well. Just read.
And I suppose you're going to tell us that we are superior to any creature? Then why do Eagles have much better eye sight than we do? Why can some animals see in the dark, when we CAN'T, if we are superior to them? Natural selection? BAH-HUMBUG! Evolution is a stupid theory, invented by an idiot, plain and simple!
Bruh you skipped the principle of slow evolution
The first individuals of a specie will have a soft sensitive useless spot
Wich mean that any individual trying to develop an eyeis a genetic dead end
So it's impossible to have an eye by evolution since the first individual isn't accepted or selected
@@sirhood1848 Not only did he not say that humans are superior in every way, you're also missing that humans are not birds, humans are mammals and mammals are more social creatures and require brains large enough to handle very complex social interactions and time-variable thinking ability in order to handle normal life. Humans underwent selection for larger brains while Eagles underwent selection for better eyesight.
Other animals can see in the dark because they underwent selection for that trait, although human eyesight isn't bad in low-light conditions either, but other animals' survival depended on their own ability to catch food while an early humans' ability to be fed depended on their cooperation with other humans. Different selection criteria, different 'best' features.
Intelligent Design is a stupid theory, invented by ignorant sheep farmers who knew nothing of the world around them. If you have something constructive to say, I'll listen, otherwise I'll dismiss your nonconstructive comments and probable deluge of ad hominems.
@@hassanlabyad4082 The amazing world of CZcams comment experts.
or maybe you
not sure if u defend evolution guys? even infront of the fact that the inventor of the theory himself realize it was a fraud? asking because am looking people to believe which defend dinosaurs and monkey-ape.
Darwin actually admited him self there been need for science oppose reigion
A lot of claim of the eye from a guy wearing GLASSES.
i heard glasses can make your eyes worse
What does that have to do with anything? Glasses are a human invention.
@@mervinprone invention empowered to correct poor vision😊
@@kakandecharlse8548 right
I will give you a simple origin of eye evolution instead. Allah, Vishnu and Jesus manufactured eyes. Happy now ?
Dawkins tried to eplain a complex processes with easy stages and analogies like some one do to a 4-5 year old kid. Yet the spicimen in front of him was obw made from clay. MEANS CREATION IS REAL
Bruh you skipped the principle of slow evolution
The first individuals of a specie will have a soft sensitive useless spot
Wich mean that any individual trying to develop an eyeis a genetic dead end
So it's impossible to have an eye by evolution since the first individual isn't accepted or selected
@@hassanlabyad4082okay I know that you are rage baiting but if there is even a chance that you are actually just replying the same thing on different comments because you're looking for an answer then I feel like I should at least respond to your question fully. Your argument from what I can tell is based on the idea that traits develop 1 at a time and not collectively. The first light sensitive cells that would have formed the foundation for what would become sight would probably have originally had another function as well that just happened to result in a slight sensitivity to light. This random mutation makes a lot more sense in the time frame because we aren't talking about animals the size of cats or really anything macroscopic yet as eyesight was one of the key features that helped animals evolve to that size in the first place. Organisms on the microscopic scale reproduce and therefore evolve new traits much faster than on the macroscopic scale so having organelles that contained light sensitive cells really would have been beneficial at every stage of animal development. So yeah they absolutely wouldn't be "a genetic dead end" since they would be way better equipped to exist in a constantly changing environment than organisms without the mutation
The old man didn't want to answer the age of the earth because he actually knows how ridiculous "6000 years" is.
The question I would love to ask Dawkins is, is the caterpillar the juvenile offspring of Butterflies or Moths, it cannot mate until it becomes its adult form, so the caterpillar consumes for the majority of its life when it reaches a point in its growth, it spins itself into a cocoon, inside the cocoon a process of transformation occurs called 'Metamorphosis' in which the entire caterpillar is reduced to a liquid, this is somehow rebuilt using a completely different set of DNA instructions, 9 to12 days after creating the cacoon a completely different species of creature emerges as a Moth or butterfly, from its internal organs to its entire body structure it has no resemblance to its former self.
So the caterpillar can't survive as a species unless it can Metamorphosize in order to mate, and the fossil record for Moths and Butterflies has a recent discovery, putting the known date from 100 to 200 Million years. what would be the purpose of natural selection incrementally developing the process of 'Metamorphosis' in caterpillars, this process is beyond complicated, if it takes millions of years to develop a lens for the eye from as you say, any old chunk of transparent stuff... to creating an entirely new creature in less than 2 weeks within a confined space, and literally becoming a liquid first as the medium for a new creation to be built from basically scratch. it needs to be a butterfly to survive, so if it already had this system in place, how did it evolve to this, and how could it still exist the evolving would have taken too long and the caterpillar would have died as they didn't have the mechanism to become an adult if you say they just become bigger caterpillars, what would be the purpose of naturally selecting them for an ultra-complex process of incremental micro changes over 100's of Millions of years to make it into a butterfly.
Finally just to say, when you suddenly became an expert in natures engineering, saying the there is an engineering flaw in the eye, some things have been put in back to front... are you literally mental, or just taking the piss?? you even said even though it's the wrong way because of this we can see better than an octopus. Can you engineer a biological human eye from scratch, sounds like you know how to do a better one... and to compare the vision of an octopus with our own is delusional, the octopus is able to shape the pupil aperture which shapes and steers light independently, it also has a kind of sight feedback from every individual cell of which it also has control, it is able to see outside both ends of our visible spectrum. Humans see better, define what better means in the context of vision between a deep-sea octopus, and a human with 20/20...better in what way? idiot!!
I recommend to check the position of the Prof. John C. Lennox "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?", really refreshing.
Goodness, it literally feels more like discourse between teacher and child. Nice guy, but rather unintelligent. He has no business hosting a show or debating anyone.
I would of thought photosynthesis would have been an early use of light.
Geaser in the Ralph shirts got the tight attitude!.
Discussiëren over de OORSPRONG van ons bestaan? Dat weet niemand,wij zijn allemaal religieus,zondaars
EVOLUTIE is waarneembaar wetenschap
If we evolved, then we stopped waaaay too early
We haven’t stopped 😂
We are not done yet, evolution is still going on.
@@tobiasdenhollander3210 So we share more in common DNA with a Dolphin, so are we fish or ape?
@@olivevideogames Having something in common doesn't mean you're the same. We have a common ancestor because every life is linked to each other since the birth of life.
@@tobiasdenhollander3210 thats a theory
Dawkins explained beautifully the evolution of the eye but the other guy wasn't smart enough to understand it. And by "smart enough" I mean the IQ of a 10 year old.
Nope
Bruh you skipped the principle of slow evolution
The first individuals of a specie will have a soft sensitive useless spot
Wich mean that any individual trying to develop an eyeis a genetic dead end
So it's impossible to have an eye by evolution since the first individual isn't accepted or selected
@@hassanlabyad4082 I guess you didn'n understand evolution either
@@MauroVarela333
Then explain evolution and it's caracteristics
@@hassanlabyad4082 In a youtube comment? No thanks, there are plenty of books that explain it beautifully. Read "The selfish gene" or maybe go watch the videos of the CZcams channel "Its okay to be smart" on this subject. Of course that you need basic knowledge on biology in order to understand evolution, if you didn't pay attention in school it's obvious that you will never understand it.
@@MauroVarela333
I mean as far as I know from dawkins and darwin
The evolution is a slow process of (random or guided by natural selection) mutations that get naturaly selected
The real issue is what was the eye organ doing before mutating to the most basic ability to see shade v light. The first seeing eye was still incredibly complex, as are basic cells.
Photosynthesis
We gonna miss You when you gone!!!!
Im a muslim i respect dawkins he kniws his biology. Rubish at theology fanatical atheist in his own words, Nothing would make me believe in a God.
How could anyone ever belief the fairy tale of evolution?
Intelligent people find the evidence sound. You prefer your belief system
The more intelligent a person is, the more likely that they believe in evolution
Intelligent people can. Apparently, people who cannot spell "believe" cannot.
Creationist: sits through a lecture describing answer to his own question and admits to have thought about Genesis instead the whole time.
excellent description of the evolution of the eye. what directed the evolution? and why did it give my cat shitty eyesight?
Richard Dawkins was one of the most confident liars I have ever seen. It brings to mind the adage, “a lie told with confidence and often enough soon becomes fact in the minds of the uneducated. Dawkins only stays on the surface of every subject. The moment someone tries to take the conversation deeper Dawkins changes course.
Im starting to not believe in natural selection because if it were true, a person of your intelligence wouldn’t be here
He answered every question, and is far more intelligent than you.
Then every single biologist is also lying. If you think that, go to a dictionary, look up 'idiot,' and find your own picture.
Muppet….you that is not Richard Dawkins.
should we not be getting better vision the more we get older according to Darwins theory?
No, individuals don't evolve throughout their lifespan, evolution is a gradual change through successive generations in a genetic line. These mutations are selected for by environmental pressures. Those that are sufficiently bad that they cause the premature death of a species die out while those beneficial enough to survive in that environment get passed on. Prime breeding years in humans are roughly 16-30. If vision is a trait selected for by evolution then it isn't needed beyond those years. We see a lot of species that die during the breeding process because after the genetics are passed on, the selection pressures no longer apply because on an evolutionary level, your survival no longer matters.
@@michaelm8529 so the evaluation is smart organism?
Never read evolution mate?
@@az6877 Sorry, but I read English, not nonsense. Could you translate?
bible is clear about prayer. God doesn't find it be as good if u repeat memorized. finds best if u use own words arud things u worry or think etc
To believe in the construction of an eye by selecting from accidents is certainly possible.
But only by the acceptance of astronomically high levels of improbability. So astronomical that one is surely entitled to doubt that really was what happened.
I see no demonstration that the chances are even lower than likely. The chances that it was a magic man immune to time that hates gays on the other hand seems incredibly far fetched
On what basis do you claim that there was an "astronomically high level of improbability?" Evidence, please.
The paucity of observed spontaneous genetic mutations which might be beneficial. Allied to the improbability of getting those in the right sequences.@@petercollins7730
I’m a scientist and expert in aircraft manufacturing. It is very easy and simple to build an aircraft. They bring screws and nuts and some metal sheets. They shape the sheets into an aerodynamic shape and they hold the sheets in place by nuts. Finally they bring a block of metal that can convert fuel to a thrust force and that is it. It is very simple.
From a simplistic point of view, yes, but the actual workings of an airplane are vastly more complex than that. Still, the differences between an airplane and a human are an excellent analogy for the problems with Intelligent Design.
Is this a sarcasm?
Kinda funny when Atheist try to say the Creationist are cherry picking and taking Darwin's quote about the eye out of context. The idea of hearing an Atheist actually say "you're taking that out of context" when they do that with literally every verse in the Bible (even though the verse structure was added later to help us break down each line easier).
what the hell are you talking about? Atheists dont take stuff out of the bible out of context. We simply don't care, I simply don't care, lets not argue any further and you have you're god and ill just burn in hell? ok?
Give examples of where the Bible is taken out of context?
@@Moriningland when people say stuff like “the Bible says you can’t eat shrimp or wear polyester”
This is just one example of people who have never fully read the Bible and don’t understand it’s structure. The Bible isn’t just thousands of one liner quotes from a sky daddy.
Leviticus in particular was written at a time when the Jews had just been delivered from Egypt and the Law of Moses was written to Jews to keep them from acting like the pagans that they were surrounded by.
Then in the New Testament it is declared that all meat is clean to eat and that we shouldn’t project man made religious convictions on things to appear “godly”….
My issue with anyone, (including religious people) is they have zero idea of the history of the Bible and have never read it, yet have so many incorrect opinions on it.
It would be like be saying “The avengers is a trash movie, the plot makes no sense, the acting is bad, and the special effects are bad too”…and yet I’ve never seen the movie, and my opinion is solely based on a commercial I saw or a rotten tomatoes review online.
@@MrWhite00001 The bible literally says that eating shrimp, or wearing garments made of 2 fibers is prohibited. How is that taking a bible verse out of context.
The Darwin quote is taken out of context because, in the very next sentence, Darwin says that isn spite of the difficulty to believe, the evolution of the eye is true.
Dawkins is very very wrong. WhY? The photoreceptor cells of the retina are placed backward, true. Dawkins assumes that from the perspective of evolutionary theory, the human eye is evidence for unguided evolution and against intelligent design. But is the human eye really evidence against design?
The light-sensing cells in a vertebrate retina require lots of nutrients and vast amounts of energy. In mammals, they have the highest metabolic rate of any tissue in the body. About three-quarters of the blood supply to the eye flows through a dense network of capillaries called the “choriocapillaris,” which is situated behind the retina. Oxygen and nutrients are transported from the choriocapillaris to the light-sensing cells by an intermediate layer of cells called the “retinal pigment epithelium”
In addition to transporting oxygen and nutrients to the light-sensing cells, the RPE performs two other essential functions. First, the dark pigment in it absorbs scattered light, improving the optical quality of the eye. Second, it removes toxic chemicals that are generated in the process of detecting light. The light-sensing cells contain stacks of discs, and in 1967 Richard Young showed experimentally that a photoreceptor cell continually renews itself by shedding discs at the end closest to the RPE and replacing them with newly synthesized discs at the other end.12 The RPE then engulfs the shed discs and neutralizes the toxins.
Blood is almost opaque, and the RPE absorbs light. If the light-sensing cells were to face the incoming light, the blood-filled choriocapillaris and the RPE would have to be in front of the retina, where they would block most or all of the light. By contrast, nerve cells are comparatively transparent, and they block very little of the incoming light. Because of the high metabolic requirements of the light-sensing cells and their need to regenerate themselves, the inverted retina is actually much better than the “tidy-minded” design imagined by evolutionary biologists.
The blind spot (a in the drawing) is not a serious problem, because the blind spot produced by the left eye is not in the same place as the blind spot produced by the right eye. This means that in humans with two good eyes, the field of vision of one eye covers for the blind spot of the other eye, and vice versa.
What about the claim that cephalopod eyes are better than vertebrate eyes? In 1984, a team of Italian biologists pointed out that cephalopod eyes are physiologically inferior to vertebrate eyes. In vertebrate eyes, the initial processing of visual images occurs in the retina, by nerve cells right next to the photoreceptor cells. In cephalopod eyes, nerve impulses from the photoreceptor cells must travel all the way to the brain to be processed. So a cephalopod eye “is just a ‘passive’ retina which is able to transmit only information, dot by dot, coded in a far less sophisticated fashion than in vertebrates.” The result is slower processing and fuzzier signals.
All of the research cited above about the choriocapillaris and RPE, and the superiority of vertebrate eyes to cephalopod eyes, was published before Dawkins published The Blind Watchmaker. But Dawkins and the other critics of intelligent design didn’t bother to check the scientific literature. They simply assumed that evolution is true and that they knew how an eye should be designed. Then they concluded that the human eye is badly designed, claimed it as evidence for evolution, and ignored the contrary evidence. What do we make of this? Everyone can judge by himself.
Yeah, but if you're a creationalist, You're not going to be persuaded even if Dawkins makes sense, we live in a time when truth gets in the way of belief
@@Theother1089 yeah, but if your a evolutionist no evidence is going to convince you as your belief stands in the way of truth as often in these times....
So after listening to Dawkins for the first 5 minutes, where he says that a poorly functioning eye is better than no eye, the simple question has to be asked....
How is it possible for a any creature to survive if it's such easy prey?
I mean, ultimately if every example of a species is getting gobbled up by something further up the food chain, how can it evolve into something better?
This is a massive logical fallacy of evolution. Either a species is equipped to survive, or it doesn't. You simply cannot have it both ways.
If the predator also has no eyes, it’s not ‘easy prey’.
Also, there are a lot of animals that are not predators, but they eat plants only, and don’t have many or any natural predators.
Also, an animal only has to survive long enough to procreate, and evolution is on its way.
@muziekextravaganza @muziekextravaganza there's numerous logical fallacies and problems to what you have said. Are you saying that all creatures eyesight evolved at the same rate, concurrently? If so, why do some animals have vastly superior eyesight to others now?
Also, how is it possible that some animals "evolved" having eyes on the sides of their heads, (deer, for example) while others have evolved to have eyes more towards the front (dogs, and pretty much any other predator species, ourselves included). The fact remains that any animal that wasn't born "fit for purpose" wouldn't last 5 minutes on its own let alone long enough to procreate, as it either would be able to hunt, or it would be eaten. In other words, these animals were made fit for purpose right from the start. Otherwise, they wouldn't have survived long enough to breed. There's literally no herbivorous animal that does have natural predators. If there is, name one.
The change occurred in those who survived by natural selection.
@Clint Eastwood "by natural selection"?
So if it couldn't see, how could it see, and therefore run away from predators?
Quite simply, evolution cannot work. It just can't. It's flawed on so many levels. It's ultimately people clutching at straws because they do not want to concede that there's a higher power
@@pablojones5613 That actually proves my point. Those who couldn’t see died. This means that through natural selection, in their environment, they were hunted down by predators and died. The rate of change is different for every species. Meaning, at the same time there could be species that did have the ability to understand the surroundings via a primitive eye and survived. Also, this change stops at some level for some species (in terms of complexity). It’s true that many species got extinct due to not having an eye (as rudimentary as it can be). However, it doesn’t mean that in order to survive, you need the equipment for it. The environment is a key factor. If the animal is living in an environment that makes it hard for the predators to see the said animal, then that animal can survive without ever having any survival equipment.
Whoah! A flawed design that turns out to be better. Riddle me that!
A flawed design that is better than nothing, and better than the previous, more flawed design.
A car that can only go 10 MPH is better than a car that can only go 5 MPH.
Next time, try to use your brain, at least a litlle.
@@petercollins7730not technically true. If I wished for my car to only be able to do 5mph then surely the car which can only do 5mph is better than the one which can do 10
@@daddyquickers6673 Sad that you put so much effort into being so stupid. But keep up the dimwittery - we all enjoy the laughs.
Logic..@@daddyquickers6673
The operative scientific word is at 5:26. Imagine. Imagine Wendy, imagine Peter Pan, Imagine a God!
Except that examples of animals with different stages of evolution exist even today, so you don't need to imagine :)
- a planarian has a cup (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian), so you don't to imagine it
- a nautilus has a pinhole, without a lens or any transparent cover (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus), so you don't to imagine it
Meanwhile, the intelligent designer creates stars and the Sun *after* creating plants, throws a couple of talking animals, and requires Abraham to cut the skin off of his penis and all penises in the house. Seems legit
Both of these men have found their peace in believing something over everything else when there is not actually enough evidence to do so.
There is enormous, uncontroverted evidence for evolution. There is literally no evidence for christianity. Massive amounts of evidence is enough, especially compared to none.
Notice a lot of comments here from evolution believers. All very sarcastic and angry. Is it fair to say this hits a soft in your armor? Really the eyes are only one single instance where evolution just seems completely insufficient and unprepared to explain. What I try to stay away from because it’s such a inflammatory subject is how racist evolution is. I also refrain usually because causes the discussion to go off track. If evolution was meant only to explain the macro version it would be an entirely more believable science.... if it’s even science ?? I think evolution is actually just a theory outside of the belief in God so therefore it must make its claims.
I understand the difference between needing to find answers without God and needing to look to God for the answers.
The latter seems a lot more believable because the former is just so complex even it’s followers/believers cannot explain Evolution without sounding ridiculous.
God had to create everything, there’s simply no way this all came about out of nothing and by random chances no matter how much time evolutionists continue to add to it.
I believe in guided evolution.. in intelligent design .. I really really have a hard time understanding those people who believe in randomness and luck.. my mind crashes everytime I try to understand how they think :/ Why do they hate The Creator that much ?!?
@John Carboni Because we know how it happened and have an example of incredibly simplistic eyes which are almost nothing but an optic nerve and can see almost nothing at all, through various stages of complexity upwards. And these are examples of eyes we find in living, extant animals we can see and examine and show.
Why is it that incomprehensible to you ?
It is a science supported by several entire scientific fields. You claiming personal ignorance and projecting your claim that accepting mainstream science as being a "belief" just shows how much you *didn't* educate yourself on the topic before you presumptuously decided to try to uproot *several different scientific disciplines* without having studies *any of them*.
@John Carboni No, because *nothing* ever evolved from a rock.
@John Carboni I like how you resort to base insults when I point out the straw man you keep claiming verifies your personal refusal to accept several different fields of modern science and somehow making them "unscientific".
Can you tell me what exactly you think evolution is and how it works, because I am highly certain you may not entirely understand it.
🤔🤔 doesn't make sense 😂😂
Dawkins is talking BS. Making things up as he goes.
Nope he's a biologist he knows.
Scrotumofbodom1 does that remove an agenda if he’s a ‘biologist’. That’s not a argument, actually science is pretty much religion, only to be told by what’s in front of us instead of knowledge and wisdom only God can show you.
@@lilylou1764 oh wow really? That's your response. Science is a religion? please don't be that ignorant, science doesn't make claims all it shows is testable facts brought by on by evidence in the bases of which we can all test and agree with, the magical man in the sky is the illogical response to any question.
@@lilylou1764
Hey physicists and mathemathecians work hard
Don't call all science delunsion because biologists and astronomy atheists try hard to fight the creator
@@Scrotumofbodom1
Evolution Biology and anti-creation astronomy have no empirical evidence
Why didn't you evolve with food always in your belly, that would have been better for you.
Because evolution is bound by the law of physics, meaning food cannot spontaneously replace itself forever in your belly
Death proves God. God said Do not eat the fruit and we did. Sin happened and death was the consequencesl of disobedience.
What a pseudo science without any proof.
Only wishfull thinking
What was there first the heart, the blood or the lungs..?
The Fool says in his heart there is no God.
"The Fool says in his heart there is no god."
NOPE!
The TRUE FOOL says that there IS a god, then FAILS TO PROVE IT.
Solving your question (which was sarcastic, given that you're a creationist): blood was first, then the heart, and finally the lungs.
ADRIAAN Vi AMEN
CNCmachiningisfun proof is around us, until you catch on, which takes discernment and wisdom , then yes, a fool is someone who rejects God .
@@juanbravoroman1091 bruh how is there blood when there is nothing to PUMP or move the blood??
This is one of the most asinine theortale ever from the overly undereducated Dawkins.
Imagine studying for years, getting a doctorate in your field, writing books and studies and then some guy on the internet with barely a high school diploma says you are full of shit.
@@kabeltelevizio It must really suck to get a doctorate in some unnamed field, author fairytales and them some overly educated person on the internet destroys your life's work with two simple scientific requests.
Then this overly educated person on the internet has to listen to an ignoramus use, an appeal to majority, appeal to authority, post hoc ergo propter hoc, along with a childish ad hominem attack in a sophomoric attempt to lecture this overly educated person without realizing their entire argument is worthless.
Imagine an evolutionist who is able to use logic and science to back their imaginary claims. The odds are one to one you will never find one, but maybe you are the one in one million arrogant evolutionists who can use science and logic to answer the following.
Please characterize the chemical processes which created the first self-replicating cell. I know this is abiogenesis and evolution does not encompass abiogenesis, yet the first self-replicating cell is necessary for the evolutionary process to begin. This is indeed science and logic which is presently being worked on by evolutionist, Dr. Lee Cronin et al, using state of the art technology.
Okay ignoramus here it a definition before you ponder these evolution destroying questions based upon actual science. Evolution-speciation at the family level of taxonomy.
Please characterize the chemical and biological processes which changed any species into a different species, it is your choice to choose. It is not enough to state these species demonstrate a commonality, but evolution must work through chemical and biological processes. Time and natural selection are not creative devices, to be more accurate time will destroy biological processes.
I realize these requests may be beyond your expertise, but you are allowed to use any source available in the entire universe. Surely with all of the evolutionary scientists with advanced honorifics the characterizations should be readily available. Please stay away from the straw man fallacy.
@@kabeltelevizio Imagine living in this world as long as Dawkins and believing humanity is a bunch of soulless robots who came from goo by chance. Imagine the ignorance.
@@juke1225 Imagine not bringing any arguments to the table and thinking you are smart. Imagine the ignorance.
@@kabeltelevizio You think little Mickey has a high school education? You vastly overestimate him.