Randolph Nesse Interview (1/5) - Richard Dawkins
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 01. 2009
- RichardDawkins.net -
This is the uncut interview with Randolph Nesse from the 'The Genius of Charles Darwin' presented by Richard Dawkins. Randolph Nesse is the author of 'Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine" ( www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Sick... )
RichardDawkins.net will soon be releasing a collection of all the uncut interviews from The Genius of Charles Darwin, so be sure to check out our store ( richarddawkins.net/store/ ) for that title and other exclusive DVDs, t-shirts, and more.
The Genius of Charles Darwin won "Best TV Documentary Series of 2008" at the British Broadcast Awards. - Věda a technologie
Man just typing in "dawkins interview" into the search bar reveals literally hours of quality of entertainment. I'm absolutely loving. God bless the man. (tongue in cheek)
Randolph Nesse is an amazingly talented popularizer of science. Many thanks to Richard Dawkins for interviewing people like Dr. Nesse
Excellent clip. Randolph Nesse articulates the concepts so clearly.
I had to fix Randolph Nesse's title on this video, so I re-uploaded part 1. That's all. - Josh
Fascinating discussion, thank you.
Fantastic! I loved learning so much science in such a short time.Thank you both and all who made this possible.
awesome interview!
I want these two to be my roommates and always discuss such things and have such experiments.
My feelings exactly. I love being around people like them and just listening to their ideas.
I'll bet Doctor nesse in an incredible doctor. He seems remarkably intelligent.
Amazing interview about human illness and it's relationship to evolution.
Good job
I was Bron with an eye condition called Nystagmus. so my eyes are constantly "jiggling" left and right. I cannot drive because of it. Even the "solution" to the "problem" has its draw backs. One line off on the eye chart to drive. Glasses cannot correct it either.
When it's no longer just an element, but it's a complex living organism. It has systems within itself that mantain its existence.
Precisely at the last dimensional shift. To use a musical analogy, we are in a disharmonic dominant 7th waiting to resolve on the octave. I also love Abbot's analogy of Flatland.
Science mostly thinks within the parameters of one dimension. Dawkins and others haven't yet learned how to speculate out into 7 or 10 dimensions.
O MY GOD THAT'S FREAKY!!!!
I just found my blind spot. Its more like an extremely blurry spot where you can't make anything out.
9:30 RD and RN discuss the use of the words machine and design as metaphor and inference for how the body works. In "The Ascent of Man" Jacob Bronowski (See channel Korborh) he addresses why we make the association with machine and design. We are the designers of machines/tools initially designed to emulate our body. A lever is an extended arm. An axle is a prosthetic limb joint. Our fingers and hands are a wedge to pry things apart and a sharp rock makes a better wedge.
Somebody show this interview to Kirk Cameron, please.
Watching these two brilliant men discuss biology is truly fascinating, and should not be missed.
Try it this way:
get a small piece of paper and mark two points:
o __________ o
(~5 cm or so away from each other.)
Close your left eye.
Focus the left point with you right eye.
Change the distance and the right point should disappear at one time.
(Guess somewhere between 15-25 cm)
Though you have to focus on the left point, all the time. As soon as you move your eye even a bit you will see the point again.
Funny because cameras until recent backlit sensors were actually designed with the wires on the front.
I agree. That's exactly the problem with religion, the same downward spiral argument, not a discussion. You can't have a discussion with a religious person only an argument. When you free your mind and look at facts the possibilities are endless. You make real progress.
As those organisms changed, they started creating variations of themselves over a long period of time. Some of those variations became different "species" because of the changes that took place over such a great period of time. That Unbroken Thread I was speaking of is the fact that we can trace our genetics back to the very first lifeforms on this planet that were simple molecules of amino acids and such. To the very first piece of RNA that existed.
Might take a bit, but here it is in a nutshell. I suggest researching it. In early earth as it was cooling, many gases existed in the atmosphere differently than they do today. There was also frequent lightning strikes. Certain groups of these chemicals fuse together in lightning strikes and in perfect conditions. These chemicals then form into basic acids. Over time these acids begin to replicate making crude copies. From there bacertia evoled and so on into simple multi-celled organisms.
Cool!
@aaronsdavis I've always been pleased by the fact that you can type the word "typewriter" using only the top row. It used to be known as the longest word that can be typed with only the top row but I've seen another one... I'm sticking with "typewriter"! Doesn't look like we're gonna get an answer for "why qwerty"?
At 4:48, what kind of physiologic Nystagmus is Randolph talking about exactly? Does nystagmus occur automatically in the stationary eye?
He says nobody would ever design an arm like that and then goes on to explain why the arm is like that and that it is the best design.
@
martiangrundy : may I suggest that you give some links, when you are suggesting independant studying? :)
I tried the pencil experiment with the blind spot, but I see the pencil all the time, in all angles..?
Whoever said a pencil is mightier than a sword was absolutely right. In this case, however, it's a pencil with a pin on its top.
It's a great design. This design works. Death is part of life. Who says the design was intended to be flawless? A flawless design would be paradise. This life is not paradise, nor was it intended to be. It's a test. To place us all where we belong according to our actions.
you know you have enough viewers to get into CZcams Affiliate program. This will allow you to upload whatever size video you want, so you dont have to cut em up anymore.
In the long scheme of things more goes wrong than right in order to replicate the successful and that's the way it should be or there wouldn't be any life.
@lightuponlight87 Here is an example. Lets say there are two buildings 1 mile apart. One species is one building and the other species is the other building. For you to get to either one, you have to walk one step at a time. We don't see a species change magically because it doesn't happen that way. If you had a million red post it notes on your wall covering the entire thing, and day by day you changed one to pink. You might not notice at first but in a few weeks you will. Thats a crude example
Besides, it blows my mind away that this doctor belittles the phenomena of eyes. I heard a doctor give an hour lecture about it and I was amazed. He spent a half hour just talking about the eyelids. He wanted to continue for hours but didn't have the time.
Much like individuals, species have a life expectancy that can be cut short and/or run out without leaving descendants. 99.9% of the species that existed since the beginning of life on earth have gone extinct - and only some of them have descendants living today. Almost every living creature that was ain't no more.
Our lineage is very well defined in the fossil record as are most of the transitions people see as 'major'. (flight, life on land, lungs etc)
I love to use the word ''reaction'' instead of design, creation, will and all of those.
'I find it very hard to find another word [than 'design'] for these mechanisms that work so well'.
Umm... how about 'adaptation'??
Not sure, but I have the same experience. Could be because the brain is getting no data, but is instead just making it up. Hence the lack of clarity.
Two questions,
1. has there been any scientific observation that a living substance can come from non living material?
2. Where did the bacteria, which is what you seem to claim to be the origin, come from?
At which point did the perfect world "fall"?
So basically this is a discussion about how amazing the body is... and then they realize that they shouldn't say that so they start talking about how flawed the body is... meanwhile they accidentally say "designed" over and over and over and then return to talking about how amazing the body is (accidentally saying "designed" again)... and then back to how flawed it is...
Crazy video.
Let's move on to the next example. The phenomena of water, and even greater than that, rain. Rain is like a perfect recycling system. Was that also by chance?
If you say yes, then I'll move on to the ozon layers, which protect us from the harmful rays of the sun.
Do you know that why the big objects, will be seeing in the long distances so small, because our eyes lenses, gives us this imagine, if it was the other way round, those objects has been seen same size even in the far distances!
This is my absolute favorite video about evolution!
You know, I just read Barth Ehrman's book which illustrates all the errors in the bible and destroys a person's faith in the idea that the bible is innerant... but these guys talking about how crappy the body is while discussing amazing things about the body reminds me of the following words.
Denying God who is self-evident. Always learned but never coming to the truth.
They keep saying design! I'm surprised that Dawkins posted this.
Much of Christianity is stuck with not just inerrancy but with literalism. 2nd Temple Jews and early Christians did not believe that Genesis Creation story was literal but allegorical. You can read Origen of Alexandria to see this fact.
Part of the reason for religious literalism and inerrancy historically has been reactionary.
But when you ask the right questions you will find that there is always selective literalism. They are not reading „the plain text“.
Ask any literalist inerrancy Christian if they ever considered castrating themselves to become closer to God. They will say no and be offended. But Jesus said it was a way to become closer to God.
This is fucking great :D
If you go to the BBC iPlayer there's a programme called The Incredible Human Journey, it's all about human evolution.
Happy viewing. : )
It also depends on what your definition of living substance is. We can create amino acids in a test tube that replicates the old-earth but not sentient. We cannot create bacteria or anything like that. These living things are much too complex for our science right not BUT we CAN create the building blocks that were created naturally by evolution millions of years ago.
Everything on this planet is directly connected, from the tree to the animals and bugs to us and to the land.
Thank you. I hope you the same.
@sonykroket it's about perspective
i think as a quick overview i would always refer to the human body inc brain as a machine.
Makes me think of Esther
What does everyone think of the multiverse theory? If evidence for this is discovered, how will it affect the theory of evolution?
I did listen to the arguments in the this video, in fact i would parrot some of them. The doc can't but realize the evidence of design thereby acknowledging the designer.
A designer who made something with a handicap and it didn't work would fail. But one that made something with a handicap and bypasses for that handicap would get an A+.
It's like doing it with one hand tied behind your back.
We are all made of the same thing. There is no difference in our DNA at all except for how it is arranged. The molecules in ALL living things including us are traceable back to phenomenon in the cosmos like the development of our sun. This is an astounding understanding of evolutionary biology.
1. Yes, this test has been done many a time inside laboratories that replicate the environment that existed when life was just forming. Using the correct chemical compositions that we know existed, we can cause amino acids to form and proteins. The exact compounds that come out of our primordial oceans millions of years ago.
2. I explained in my last post where the bacteria came from. It came from the exact origin that we did. We came from bacteria. It is one beautiful chain of development.
@lightuponlight87 If there were a designer, you think he would have had the foresight (lol) to allow us to see gamma ray, xray, infrared, ultraviolet, and radio, as all these things affect us and are necessary to understand. The eyelid is just a simple shield of the eye which also keeps the eye lubricated. Some animals have two or three eyelids. We only have one. Some design.
Why are they assuming that we are fully evolved...we've only being evolving for less than 1 million years...of course we are'nt perfect, but constantly improving through evolution.
Absolutely. Straight out of Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Scientific thinking is often as dogmatic as a lot of religious thinking.
How come there is no living evidence of alot of inbetween species so that we can see a clearer picture of how we evolved?
e.g the species inbetween ape and human, species inbetween fish and amphibian etc.
There should be clear species today that if you lined them up would almost be a poster for the evolution process.
Im interested and im not putting down the theory of evolution.
Please respond.
Thanks.
It is common knowledge that this universe had a beginning. At least, with the stars and planets.
Let's look back when the universe first began with the big bang. When it was all one entity. What caused its seperation, if it was eternal? Why did it happen at that moment? Why not a billion decades before that, or after that?
The analogy used is like a match. You could leave the match as long as you want, it will never light up without an external cause.
I could not find my blind spot when i tried his test. =/
wow tthis is rilly cool
Read Charles Darwin's 'The Descent of Man'.
The mutations of the gene pool are the same in bacterias and mammals! It was believed that in order to observe the same effects in mammals we unfortunately have to wait approximately one million years because the rate of reproduction of mammals is quite slow compared with bacteria.
Fortunately the evolution of vertebrates is observed already - read the lizards' evolution in the island Pod Mrcaru. But of course we didn't observe there two functions evolved simultaneously - but several functions!
"it's almost automatic to talk about [the mechanisms of the body] being designed", what doesn't look automatic, rather, what looks quite awkward, is Nesse employing the words "evolution" or "natural selection" as description words as opposed to what he noted earlier "felt" automatic as a doctor with intimate knowledge of the the human body. You can almost detect a reluctant surrender in Nesse's voice to Dawkins' suggestion/correction. Inclination is not empirically verifiable.
Great vid. Thanks for posting. Eqloquent demolition of Creationism.
"One thing I don't understand. Dawkins makes the comment that small successive changes can't work (i.e. prop engine to jet engine) Nesse agrees - Then almost immediately he states in the emphatic that small changes are necessary."
Small successive changes don't happen in DESIGN (where the designer would try or be able to plan things out)-- they happen in Natural Selection because there is NO design.
IOW, evolution (& human anatomy) shows that there is no intelligent design (or designer).
The Christian world view makes so much sense of these anomalies. A world created perfectly which at some point "fell." An indomitable creative spirit in humans, and yet subject to decay. Heading towards a singularity where death moves backwards and the world is put to rights. But it's so bloody unscientific.
In order for anything to exist, there has to be a first. That first has to be eternal, because a spontanious existence doesn't make sense. That eternal being must be free of all needs and completely independent. Based on the greatness and precision of the universe, the causer must be wise and capable.
We all agree, evil exists. Corruption exists. Injustice exists. If there's a God, surely he wouldn't allow this to be the end.
We don't demand the universe to answer, we are simply using our logic. If I find a watch on the floor, I don't need to demand that the watch give me the answers for its origins. I simply know that an intelligent person created it.
When I said ''some of the bacterias'' I meant an entire population of bacterias!! Not just few of them... They spread their genes in the entire population... This is step-by-step simultaneous mutation in evolving species... Obviously you didn't follow my advise to study this case carefully!
Compared to other possibilities. Water and heat are two necessary elements. And someone who's more knowledgable would realize more necessary factors in order for it to happen.
If you have to compare, then compare it to mars, or some other planet. Or imagine the earth without water, or sun, or an ozone layer. The average estamate of the earth is 4 billion years (if we were to accept that). That mean, there was a time when earth wasn't even here. It was non existant.
What about “Designed by natural selection”?
[Fr. p. 2032 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" (1967): science / L scientia knowledge, fr. scient-, sciens (pres. part. of "scire" to know) 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute] That's science. It means "to know." There are innumerable means by which to learn. The derivation of the word "science" doesn't mention tenured "professors"; "peer review" nor "consensus."
Learn things. Impress women.
From my knowledge, the answer Dawkins always gives is "science is working on it."
In my opinion, it's common sense. Let's leave the origin of life and speak about the origin of the universe. The start of the universe had to be an external cause. That external cause had to be eternal. And the eternal and external cause must have been wise and capable. Call him the first, or the wise, or the cause, or God. Even without this logic, it's in our natural disposition to recognize this.
the difference between bacteria and mammal comes down to the genes. it's the genes that are different, not our characteristics. Our size and features are manifestations of the genes we have. since the differences in the genes can be traced back and mapped, there is every chance a bacteria can evolve into something that doesn't look like a bacteria. in fact under the right circumstances can evolve into something big.
@TheRegulator81 The theory of evolution wouldn't be affected if this theory were proven true. The only thing that it would change is our perspective on the size of the universe and dimensions. It would also explain why the amount of gravity felt throughout the universe is greater than the object in our universe that are creating it. There is actually an equation that can be done to factor in all sources of gravity in the Universe and it comes out uneven. This is why it remains a theory & not law
@klindred Human's could perceive something as perfect and it not be perfect however, if any creature (human or otherwise) can note imperfection then it isn't perfect by definition.
This is a backlash to the argument that creationists give that the complexity of a human proves god on the basis that the human body has been designed in such an immaculate way. All these guys are doing in this argument are showing that the body isn't designed in the perfect way which is correct.
@crapcake101 The problem with evolutionary psychology is that, although interesting, it is essentially a science of total speculation. Actually, I would go as far as to say all behavioural psychology is based on speculation although there are some areas with more efficacy than others within this topic.
the human body is self replicating machine.
I'm with stoopid -->
Compaired to other possiblities. Or even compared to any other planets. .
They contradicted themselves.
They claim that we have poor design, but then they say "but the body has other methods that remove the flaws," and they assume that it was "natural selection" that did it.
They claim that it is not intelligent design, but then they claim that natural selection is remarkable for "perfecting" the flaws. If that's not a fallacy, then I don't know what is.
That's like saying "You can't levitate and walk through walls? Well, that means you're a bad cook!" The comparison doesn't make sense, and just replying with ad hominem attacks doesn't validate your stance at all.
@lightuponlight87 Evolution doesn't mean that DNA gains information, it is a reorder of the DNA. We share the EXACT DNA of trees and every other living thing on the planet. This is what is referred to as the Unbroken Thread. The only thing that makes us different is the way those genes are ordered that creates varieties of life.
"Reason is the Devil's harlot, who can do nought but slander and harm whatever God says and does" - Martin Luther
"We sacrifice the intellect to God" - Ignatius Loyola
@british123able
True enough, my use of his credentials was merely to illustrate that his outlook is going to be somewhat different then if he were touting philosophy as a way to gain factual evidence. Not sure I'd call Newton "arrogant" because he could provide a mathematical proof for orbital velocity and relation... but apparently klindred's point is different.
From this what we can see is that when a philosophical argument is shot down by scientific facts.. apparently it's arrogance. :)
Oh, they fixed the underbite of the Victorian skeleton since the last part! LOL! What's the skeleton's name, if female, Elizabeth? Just curious.
obviously you did not watch the whole video
0:51 even the skeleton agrees
Your personal problems are worrisome, but this isn't the place to discuss them.
@SneakyDudeBG I'm studying law and psychology haha there is a lot of Darwinism in psychology as there is in all sciences
Quote from Dr. Nesse: "Very few doctors have had a chance to get an education in evolutionary biology...Things would have made a lot more sense if someone had just explained how natural selection works."
It's pitiful that Natural Selection is not being taught to everyone, let alone prospective doctors. It is taught it as part of Biology A-level in England. Who is running medical schools in the U.S? (clue; Big Pharma).
I'm looking forward to the medical evolution - revolution.
Richard Dawkins has a bigger blind spot than most people.
Yes, they do...I'm sorry.... YOU have to Learn
"Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)
Tell me, did anyone posses that type of knowledge 1400 years ago?
Also funny how some former-christian atheists use phrases like "thank god". Must be some subconscious belief in god, right?
I would be a little more careful about making statements like that. Seems to me that instead of posting an angry comment on Dawkins' youtube stuff that you could, perhaps, crack open a biology textbook.
@TAz69x Only 90%?