Dawkins is not only an excellent scientist, but also an excellent communicator. I could listen to him for hours.

@2fast2block

2 жыл бұрын

Shut up. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

@rodgersshazhira741

Жыл бұрын

He is someone with very limited knowledge about Creationism and hence he recently said he now believes creation happened.

@zahirmurji

Жыл бұрын

@@rodgersshazhira741 what do you smoke? Get of it .

@benedibrava

Жыл бұрын

richard is scientists he still think evolutionism is science

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

@@benedibrava As I showed, he can't get around BASIC science.

I love the analogy of language as it's one that everyone can understand. Latin became Spanish, Italian, French and Portuguese. At no point did anyone speak a language that their parents and children didn't speak. It gradually changed over a lot of time, and branched into separate languages that now, can't be understood by the others. One language is humans, one is chimps, one is another ape. At no point did one speaker "give birth" to another speaker that they couldn't understand. To say 'why are there monkeys when they turned into humans?' is to be ignorant of what we mean by "common ancestor". The common ancestor was represented by Latin, now formed into thriving but wholly different species.

@Kelly101Girl

7 жыл бұрын

GamingAndGeeking you made that a little earlier for me to understand exactly what he was saying so thanks!

@gamingandgeeking7880

7 жыл бұрын

Kelly101Girl I'm pleased! :)

@Dougal-Mcguire

6 жыл бұрын

Good analogy

@MrSidney9

6 жыл бұрын

I once presented this analogy to a creationist before, but it didn't work because he believes that the tower of Babel is the origin of the diversity of language .

@spikeconley

5 жыл бұрын

Every parent knows that their children speaks a slightly different language than they do. In fact, every parent of a grade school student complains of precisely this.

That's the best explanations of evolution I've ever heard from him. Always learning.

@2fast2block

2 жыл бұрын

No, you're just stooo-pid too. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

He explains it so well, a child could understand. Yet some adults cannot comprehend... lol

@runewalsh750

5 жыл бұрын

It's because they don't want to. I remember being very defensive as well about this stuff back when I was a believer. If anything sounds even a bit implausible (and the premise of evolution is indeed implausible to someone who has no idea what it means and how the process works, let's be honest), then they just dismiss the whole thing as 'heresy'. I mean who will they side with, their relatives/friends who they grew up with and believe the same things or some random dude on the internet who tells them this strange stuff? Sure some people are bright and logical enough to start questioning on their own but for the average person it's when they hear stuff from people closer to them when they start wondering. People need better education and making fun of them won't help.

@richardguyver6676

5 жыл бұрын

agree with @Rune Walsh. Can not or will not understand?

@revilayshun689

4 жыл бұрын

I child would be easily deceived by it, but an educated, thinking adult would see the fallacies.

@elishaandrewraley3318

4 жыл бұрын

It's because of childhood brainwashing, also know as teaching a child religion.

@johnnybailey9938

4 жыл бұрын

John Doe you are delusional as well as well as this demon who trying to explain who were the first man on earth is Total Nonsense. 👇🏾🤔 Revelation 12:9,12 [9]And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 👇🏾👇🏾🤔🤔 [12]Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. The Philosophy foolishness of men shall be eradicated from off the face of the Earth, when Jesus Christ, "THE BLACK MASSIAH returns. 👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾🤔🤔🤔 Romans 14:11-12 [11]For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. [12]So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

I never understand why people have such a hard time accepting that we are animals. Not only is it obvious but it's also wonderful. I love animals and I love the idea that I'm related to them.

@TheAlexisLorrain

3 жыл бұрын

It is because we are the only super intelligent species, yet there is a bilogical explanatgion to that too; I just wish Dawkins emphasized that more.

@ajoseph87

3 жыл бұрын

Same. There exists this arrogance in many people because of our exceptional abilities that other animals don’t have. But nobody should be proud of natural abilities because what are they really without standing on the shoulders of those few people before us who actually propelled society into a better situation.

@readysoldier6799

2 жыл бұрын

@@ajoseph87 Animals are property. They are here to serve and entertain us.

@richardm1635

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheAlexisLorrain I'm not all that sure "we are the only super-intelligent species." Whales, dolphins, elephants and some others seem pretty clever as well. They seem to communicate in ways we cannot yet fathom. The human difference seems to me to be our unusual combination of intelligence with dexterity. And for all our brilliance, given how tragically popular the belief in fairy tales remains, wisdom and critical-thinking skills are still so rare that we end up with entities such as the Taliban, Nazis, communists, incels, MAGA's, ad nauseam...

@AA-yl4wq

2 жыл бұрын

Name me one animal that can deceive like a human being? Name me one animal that can pretend to love someone when they actually hate them? Name one that can be very nice when wanting something then turn nasty once they’ve got it? Name one that can pretend they are full when they are actually hungry? Name one that can pretend to cry and be upset at someone’s loss when they are actually happy? There is no creature like the human being, the human being can commit a spectrum of deeds ranging from the most compassionate to the most brutal and merciless and everything in between. That’s what leads people to believe in a creator, one who will judge us for all that we have committed and will punish or reward us accordingly.

The clock and toddler metaphors are good. Recording them in my head.

@cockoffgewgle4993

5 жыл бұрын

The teenager one not so good. You become a teenager the day you turn 13.

@Brandon75689

5 жыл бұрын

@@cockoffgewgle4993 But you turn 13 only when you wait for 12am of that day at the same timezone as you were born. Even when there will be slight miscalculations because of days not being exactly 24 hours etc.

@andyng5321

3 жыл бұрын

@@Brandon75689 meaning?

@cockoffgewgle4993

3 жыл бұрын

@@andyng5321 Meaning he's desperately trying to make it work with inane pedantry.

@sneezeey

2 жыл бұрын

@@cockoffgewgle4993 The teenager / age group one isn't as good but only because of societal norms about where to set and what to call certain arbitrary cutoff points: defining the teenager is a linguistic technicality, declaring adulthood is a legal boundary, defining the elderly is just something workforces and welfare systems feel better doing. No one actually looks or behaves or thinks in a discontinuous way after straddling those checkpoints, and having names and definitions for these checkpoints are no different to how biology simply has to set arbitrary checkpoints to be able to make any meaning using words.

Evolution is soooo much more fascinating than any creation myth

@BostonWhoFan515

9 жыл бұрын

In other words, they have everything to die for, while us atheists have everything to live for. I would want to die too if I was gonna go to some magical place but it's just not true. Our bodies rot and refuel the earth with the essential elements to create new life. I'm completely cool with that fact.

@allenstroud7064

8 жыл бұрын

Mike Ruggieri Are you serious? You haven't heard my creationist theory yet. It is unbelievable, thrilling, fascinating; but I can't prove all of it yet. Wait for it; evidence is still coming in!

@anonynaw

8 жыл бұрын

+Allen Stroud Yes. You are sarcastic, yet correct : Science is not absolute in it's theories. And yes, you could be correct. But the chances are so extraordinarily slim that, you'd have to be a mouse to eat that cheese (and of course it lives in a mouse-trap).

@BostonWhoFan515

8 жыл бұрын

Here's a fact. Take any of today's leading scholars. Here's two. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins. Wether you like them or not, both are a million times smarter than that Jesus guy.....if he existed at all. The jury is sure still out on that one. And I'm not surprised. I'm not an atheists because I hate religion or God. I'm an atheist because there's simply no evidence to support any religious ideologies. They're all in the primitive nonsense category as of now. Simply myths. Enough of this debate. You can believe whatever you want. I chose to stick with facts. I don't wanna go to my grave having believed in bullshit. I wanna die knowing that I at least understood some of this wonderous life, world, galaxy, and cosmos I was lucky enough to experience.

@anonynaw

8 жыл бұрын

Mike Ruggieri If you're talking to me, you're speaking to an anti-theist, who wants a sky burial.

Evolution is the most elegant, beautiful and interesting concept. It really is the greatest show on earth 🌎

@voiceofreason1829

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly, concept

@2fast2block

2 жыл бұрын

For fools like you, yes. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

@jamestown8398

Жыл бұрын

Eh, that show only got interesting near the end. The first 80% of runtime was pretty boring. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian

@bernieflanders8822

Жыл бұрын

@@jamestown8398 The book written by Richard Dawkins titled “the greatest show on earth” is enthralling from cover to cover. Have you read it or planning on? It’s on audible too

@bernieflanders8822

Жыл бұрын

Yes it’s great. The blind watchmaker and the shellfish gene too

You can hear the mans punctuation through every sentence. Couldn’t explain this any better.

@Notoriousnipple

3 жыл бұрын

Nice v taper

“I personally do not understand evolution so it must be wrong” - creationists

@madeincda

5 жыл бұрын

It amazes me that people will read the same book over and over again and still find more reason to follow it as if it were fact. But refuse to pick up a book like Origin Of Species where Darwin dedicated his life to helping others understand how nature REALLY works. And that's even before genetics existed... What a shame for humanity.

@manier101

5 жыл бұрын

I can say the same to you. Have you tried to understand the Bible the way it is meant to

@madeincda

5 жыл бұрын

Denial laineD I tried to read that filth. I did. But I still don't see why people assume why and how and for what purpose a book like that is useful. How do you know what purpose is meant when it's been remixed multiple times? When I read a book, I don't automatically assume anything. I take it with an open mind like I would looking at a piece of art, knowing the work that went in behind it. Not taking it for granted. No matter what, especially in the case of a "holy" book, it needs to be read subjectively. So no, i did not finish reading it because I'm not into fiction stories. Besides, it doesn't make any sense at all, whereas science literature actually has a clear and noble goal it is trying to reach with the help of EVERY source available.

@ekkliebtalles3511

5 жыл бұрын

i'll read it and will try to understand and will go all the way with it.

@pelesky100

5 жыл бұрын

Adam P “I personally believe in the supernatural therefore I believe evolution is true because God cannot be.......supernatural n stuff”--Willy the willfully ignorant atheistic evolutionists. 🐒🐒🐒🐒😂😂😂😂

This is about the simplest and factual demonstration of how to properly explain evolution to people who just can't seem to accept evolution as a fact. Every time someone make the argument that there are no traditional fossils I have to point out that EVERY fossil is a transitional animal just like every animal today is. Unfortunately most people who believe in Creation, and those really dishonest ones who call it Intelligent Design, simply will not acknowledge this very simple truth and continue to insist that evolution simply can not be true, but only because they can not wrap their heads around what the true process of evolution is. And of course there are those CRIMINALLY dishonest people like Ray Comfort that go around putting up curtains between real knowledge and the bullshit he peddles in.

@timmillar1003

10 жыл бұрын

I thought I understood evolution until I read this bit in "The Magic of Reality"; it's the clearest explanation of the implications of gradual evolution I've ever come across. So many videos claim to debunk evolution, not one of them actually understands it correctly. Yes, it's counter-intuitive, and difficult to understand. (Which is why we've only known about it for 150 years or so). But to claim it must therefore be wrong is a colossal argument from ignorance, or incredulity.

@TomLeedsTheAtheist

10 жыл бұрын

George Vorillas I know, sometimes typo's get the better of me, it's a disagreement with my keyboard from typing to late at night Tim Millar can attest.

@timmillar1003

10 жыл бұрын

yesz his typinig sukcs balz

@ixtlguul4578

9 жыл бұрын

Simon Brown "Paleontologist are now confirming there is no evidence of Evolution" .Citation needed. If you are referring to Niles Eldredge... would this be the Niles Eldredge who was the author of "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism"? I think you'll find that he is not a big fan of creationism. If you quote-mine him VERY carefully, you might find some passages that appear to constitute criticism of Darwinian evolution (gradualism) as it is currently understood. Like Gould, Eldredge was a proponent of punctuated equilibrium, which some creationists seem to think somehow disproves evolution or somehow proves creationism (it does neither). "..even children understand..." - a bit of a giveaway there. Some of these scientific ideas are difficult and counter-intuitive. Even children understand that the earth stands still and that Santa Claus exists. What children understand is not a good guide to what is true. No transitional forms? That's a good one. Species are not fixed. Every fossil ever found is a transitional form. Did you even watch this video? - every individual ancestor is a transitional form between the arbitrary points nominated e.g. fish and modern human. Finally EVEN IF your argument from design were sound (which it isn't), it still wouldn't prove the existence of your own chosen god; it could just as easily be Allah, or Odin, or Ahura-Mazda or any other god or gods. Believe what you like, but accept that it's based on faith not evidence.

@TomLeedsTheAtheist

9 жыл бұрын

Simon Brown No transitional fossils? I don't know of any real paleontologists that do not know that ALL fossils are transitional forms, everyone single on along with every single thing that is living or has ever lived. Trying to find transitional fossils is like trying to figure at what moment in your life you went from being a baby to being an adult. Here, maybe this will help. kzread.info/dash/bejne/aX17lZWGgr2riaQ.html

Richard Dawkins is a living treasure.

Creationist: we are not animals Meanwhile an orangutan is learning to use sign language

@frenzwilliamuyguangco605

3 жыл бұрын

@dynamike yes!

@frenzwilliamuyguangco605

3 жыл бұрын

@dynamike tf!? What evidence? Where is the proof to your claim? I heard no such thing concerning that matter. There is literally no evidence to your assumption, that is just pure bs. There is no strong evidence of a mind that is fully independent from the brain, your consciousness lies within your brain, and when you die your heart stops beating blood supply to the brain stops, and by minutes brain cells starts to die and your brain starts deteriorating if this continues and no sudden oxygen is supplied to the brain, the brain finally shuts down and so does your cosciousness, your mind cease to exist and you will be in slumber for all of eternity, a sleep that is dreamless. Sorry for the bad english, english isn't my first languange.

@martylawrence5532

2 жыл бұрын

@@frenzwilliamuyguangco605 There is no under-the-microscope evidence of any mixtures of 'ingredients of life' being able to assemble in any bio-sophistication....no matter how much help from evolutionary scientist provide. Life structures coming together-by-chance are mathematical impossibilities as much as 10^450 to 10^600 a piece. How immense is those numbers? There are only 10^80 atomic particles in the entire universe. There are only 10^18 seconds in 30 billion years. Many PhD Mathematicians have said 10^50 is where impossibility begins. This gives a signature of intelligent design. If 'ingredients of of life' can't assemble themselves, then they can't further assemble an increasing sophistication into any macroevolution schemes. Here is some hard science. Huge 'evidence' for evolution has been REAL adaptations to changes has turned out to be by gene expression bio-mechanisms that is done by already-known biological elements comprised in what is called the 'epigenomes' of all life. These are done WITHOUT DNA mutations that the evolutionary theory NEEDS to progress evolution along into more and more macroevolution from one life form to another. This type of 'microevolution' without DNA change can pass adaptations for hundreds of generations with thousands of generation can't be out-ruled. This was put into peer review for the first time in 2014. Darwin Finches with their beak modifications are an example of this gene expression bio-mechanism. Other finches have been experimented on by putting them into new diet changes on islands and they modified their beaks and muscles in 17 YEARS, not 2.1 million years as theorized by DNA mutations getting naturally selected. Natural selection, as it turns out, selects these gene expression modifications thus giving it an intelligent design signature...not the Godless-spinned random evolution one. So these REAL adaptation's precept as being 'evidence' for evolving DNA mutations has been a wrong precept making the evolution concept as being impossible. Do DNA or chromosome mutations cause trait differences? Yes but with the new above elucidation, they are evolution-impertinent. Of course, DNA, chromosome, and SNP mutations short of causing death by disease will cause trait differences but calling it 'evolution' is a sleight of hand. Evolution is not happening. We are a creation by Jesus Christ.

@stultusvenator3233

2 жыл бұрын

Smarter than the creationist. !!!!!!

@barriejonas338

2 жыл бұрын

@@martylawrence5532 After all that waffle, it matters not whether the Theory of Evolution is correct or not, it does not advance the case for creation by a "god" much less the case of saying that Jesus Christ did it.😂

Thank you Richard Dawkins. Slowly eroding religious stupidity one day at a time

What a WONDERFUL ANSWER! BRAVO

The incredible way as he explains proves that no one has to be a genius to understand evolution.

@themplar

3 жыл бұрын

The pictures come from the book "magic of reality" he wrote. I understood the topic much better after reading that.

These arguments and examples he gives are truly music in my ears

I had the same question and I was looking for the answer. Then, I found this video. Thank you very much for uploading. 💖💐

This is the best explanation of evolution I ever heard.

Truly amazing! Science flies you to the Moon, Religion flies you in to sky scrapers!

@ariffbasri

3 жыл бұрын

It's like telling kids, 1+1=2, so if you count correctly you can design & construct a space probe. And all of the kids just like grinning with joy & hooraying, couldnt wait for the next class to build one each. Not knowing what lie in between. What a pity. You can lie to dog, but not me. What a Richshit!

@jamy_hensley5423

3 жыл бұрын

True science flies you to the moon. Evolution science is of no use.

Wonderful way of conceptualizing evolution. Thank you Dawkins.

@2fast2block

2 жыл бұрын

Shut up, stoooo-pid. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

A very didactic explanation. I like Richard Dawkins when addressing issues of his specialty. He has the great gift of being able to communicate scientific ideas in an elegant and entertaining way.

@DurpenHeimer

6 жыл бұрын

yup...you can tell he gets into a roll very easily with this stuff

@KneeBenderservant

6 жыл бұрын

Really, a Gift? That would fly in the face of evolution. It is impossible to take the creator or an intelligent designer out of every day life, isn't it?

@TheIsmaelIsaac

6 жыл бұрын

let me put it in another word , he is skilled in telling fat lies and make em digiestible to people like yourself

@legendarypussydestroyer6943

5 жыл бұрын

@TheIsmaelIsaac And you're skilled to blindly accept b.s. that's been shoved up your ass since you were a baby.

@petermatthiesen8288

5 жыл бұрын

@@legendarypussydestroyer6943 Well said. Creationist: "2+2=4" is a lie. Bloody fucking stupid.

People claim there is no evidence but that's only because they don't know of any. There's plenty of evidence out there if you're strong enough to open your mind and accept it.

@johndoe6668

6 жыл бұрын

Evidence for what, Science or stories?

@jacksontaylor5708

6 жыл бұрын

john doe I'm saying there is plenty evidence for evolution which would be science across many fields.

@johndoe6668

6 жыл бұрын

I agree, there is evidence everywhere.

@Jordan-vr7ip

5 жыл бұрын

jozier bell maybe because you havn't looked at the evidence or are to ignorant to look at it you idiot.

@hoopfool8

5 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure what sort of evidence you are referring to. If you are talking about scientific evidence, there are plenty of scientists who will state that genetics does not establish neo-Darwinian evolution as a convincing explanation for the development of new genera. If you are referring to plausible evidence for a Creator, you're correct.

that shit was enlightening

Fascinating as always Mr Dawkins!

There were no Adam/Eve. Asking the question "who were the first humans?" is like asking "how old were you when you were growing up?". Humans evolving the complex ability to think is special to humans, but it's just another evolutionary survival mechanism similar to the complex sonar of a bat, or the complex camouflage of a cuttlefish. Humans evolving to be physically beautiful, better looking, and more attractive, is special to humans, but it is just another evolutionary reproduction trait similar to the beauty of peacock feathers or other fancily and colorfully evolved creatures.

@gennymikel4296

5 жыл бұрын

Evolution believable my ass. You people sit and bitch because you say "If god existed and was all good then why is there evil, oh evolution, precious evolution" yet you are blind to the fact that your stupid theory defies EVERY LAW OF ENGINEERING BY ASSUMING THAT BLIND CHANCE AND MUTATION made us all, and ignore the fact that the same evil world full of corruption, genocide and horror was made by your little god of accident and mutation. Spare us your ego driven belief in accident being superior. It accomplished nothing if you are blind to the world around you.

@gennymikel4296

4 жыл бұрын

@@AtamMardes First off, the word is Y O U, as in adult. Learn to spell. Second, cut the shit of telling me I am dishonest because I dont aggree with YOU. You do not know me and unlike fools I base my thinking on facts and I try to find them as best I can, so screw your attitude toward me. You are already wasting time making assumptions about me. You are just a rude name calling face slapper. Nothing more. There is nothing arrogant aboit me bitch, go look in the mirror. You dont know SHIT about me. Fuck off.

@gennymikel4296

4 жыл бұрын

@@AtamMardes Lots of things are DNA based. Everyone knows that. If all you can do is insult me then dont waste my time. Evil lution has gaping holes which ape theists ignore such as your time line which is absurd to insanity.

@gennymikel4296

4 жыл бұрын

@@AtamMardes Sure. As soon as you show me one single fossil chain that proves Dawkins evolution of the eye crap was anything other than lame speculation on his part since his entire video was nothing but theory, unsupported by ONE SHRED OF ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and tell me why I should take evolution seriously when it defies engineering logic and your text book author Dr. Haeckle was a proven fraud and liar himself, then explain to me me how thousands of species survived millions of years blind before they managed to evolve eye sight all at the same time, and please explain how you consider Chris Hitchens so highly educated when he expects the laws of the land to be followed with regard to his life and posessions yet he calls the ten commandments " bullshit." While you are at it I am curious as to how you atheists are so HIGHLY educated and cannot figure out why evil exists in this world and how to solve it, which means you will need to explain the mechanics of evil ( I can, can you?)to me and how to stop them as well as how atheists claim to know the bible better than christians, yet miss this glaring point. Also, since you all claim the old testament god was a butcher and murderer, explain to me why you justify idolatry including human and child sacrifice while being morally superior. Then I shall take time out of my day to waste giving you answers you will mock and scorn regardless. Make sense?

@gennymikel4296

4 жыл бұрын

@@AtamMardes By the way, wise one, how the hell do you expect to find "evidence" when the blind man has been dead for 2,000 years.

I used to use xerox copies as an example when I explained evolution to my kids. Imagine making a photo copy, and then copy each successive copy until you reach a million. You can not perceive a difference between any two consecutive copies, but compare the millionth copy to the original and you would see a huge difference.

@ 2:22 _"You can take that back as far as you like. I take it back to 185 million generations ago. You turn over the page _*_and you reveal that your 185 million great grandfather was a fish"_* - that line, with that lofty British accent, delivered with a straight face, had me on the floor laughing so hard. Obviously "Richard Dawkins" is some kind of troll character or parody of atheists? "Richard Dawkins" seems to be a bit like how "Ali G" is a troll character of Sacha Baron Conent? Or how "Dame Edna Everage" is a character of the comedian Barry Humphries. Does anyone know the name of the actor who plays the "Richard Dawkins" character? The accent, the timing, the lengthy serious build up, the wry smile to let you know it's a joke, all to deliver that dry punchline is outstanding. I have never seen a performance this good. It is a thoroughly brilliant mockery of atheism! "Your 185 million great grandfather was a fish" is so spot on. _That's _*_exactly_*_ what atheists believe!_ Is the name some kind of pun on the name "Charles Darwin"? Where can I see more of this "Richard Dawkins" character?

Richard Dawkins is the best, I have never seen him failing in any arguments.... Genius Genius

@gennymikel4296

5 жыл бұрын

If you think he is genius you have yet to leave second grade or do any research.

@vineeshaugustine9118

5 жыл бұрын

@@gennymikel4296 me or you think wisely

@b.w.1386

2 жыл бұрын

@@gennymikel4296 Sorry, Are you questioning an Evolutionary Biologist about evolution? quick follow-up, What are you a professional at?

@scaryjoker

2 жыл бұрын

Neo atheists are idiots. He has never won an argument.

what a wonderful mind and educator, I love listening to Richard talking.

@2fast2block

2 жыл бұрын

You're a nutcase too. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

Brilliant. This is how you make a long story short. Properly.

Dawkins is great at explaining things to me (as if I were a four year old). Thanks ForaTv.

Brilliantly explained.

I could listen to this guy all day 😎

This is fantastic. Got the audiobook, can’t wait to listen to it.

@SpongeBobImagination

5 жыл бұрын

"Richard Dawkins" is my favourite parody character. Not sure which British actor it is, but he is outstanding (I think he was in the Dr Who series?). Everyone knows about "Ali G" (the troll character played by Sacha Baron Conen), but NO ONE from the US seems to know that "Richard Dawkins" is a character actor. That's what makes it so funny. He really nails what atheists believe, and they have no clue he is making fun of them the whole time. It is world-class and this is one of my favourite performances.

@deltanovember1672

5 жыл бұрын

SpongeBob Imagination Ok thanks..

reading the audio book now, it's awesome

Evolution is more fascinating than any creation myth, I agree. But I would love to chill with Dawkins and explain to him why people believe in religion. Because they want to. Evolution gives us death, mortality, no longer existing. Religion can promise immortality. He knows of the 'it's just wishful thinking' idea, I know. But people ignore Darwin's book on purpose. They prefer their holy scripture which is why they line up with wallets open to say will you tell me there is a God. A God and heaven and mercy and justice, and most importantly immortality. But don't get me wrong, Dawkins is more of a badass for looking reality and truth in the face, knowing this is it. When we die, sayanora, el finito. Hope you enjoyed it, your life.

brilliant Richard, once again

@ndndndnnduwjqams

3 жыл бұрын

Are u still alive?

I love the examples he gives to illustrate evolution. Very nice.

(cont). I can see the charity it brings to your fellow man. I can see the comfort it gives to those who have nothing left. I can see the joy it brings people. I can see how fearless it makes people and how motivating it is for people to never give up hope. But I've also seen the centuries of sensless hate, violence and moral corruption is has brought along with the good. I respect those who are driven to good by their religion. But an Atheist who does good for the simple principle of making

I also like the language metaphor. It's common knowledge that Spanish derived from Latin (ancient Roman.) At what point did Latin start being Spanish? At what point did a Latin-speaking woman give birth to a Spanish-speaking child? Answer: there is no single point in time for this transition. The same can be said of a first human - there's no single point in time where there's a first human.

@jmrggrmj9330

3 жыл бұрын

There is also fascinating how languages do not com from a straight linear evolution, in the case of Spanish (modern Spanish) it is the combination of Latin with other languages including Arab and Spain itself has a lot of local languages and dialects. Where I’m going with this is that modern humans also are a mixture of probably more than one humanoid spices, there’s evidence of Neanderthal and homo sapiens mixture and others like Lucy that are also probably mixed species. Evolution is not linear and yes the languages example is very well suited.

@Mrmatt-pt3xm

3 жыл бұрын

So how was there a first male human ancestor and female ancestor at the exact same time that procreated and was also capable of taking care of an infant? And generations there after?

@thatguyrich9822

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mrmatt-pt3xm There's no single point in time where we can call something the first human. Regarding how they took care of an infant... I suppose much in the same way as any animal takes care of their young.

That is AWESOME!!!

Yes I know what you meant. The fast/quick example jumped out at me as being different because I did a driving course a while back where they actually talked about being quick, but not fast: things like watching the traffic flow, being in the right lane at the right time, anticipating signal changes and other drivers actions. It was all about being safer by spending less time getting somewhere, but not speeding. If you're driving fast, you are also quick, but the converse is not necessarily true.

That is such a nice way to put it.

So amazing.

The problem is that most people think of species as having a strict definition which to them means one species has to become another species literally one day. Corn comes from wild maize. There was never a year maize turned into corn. Its just gradual and looking back you can see the difference. If we went back in time and we did pick a point it would just be arbitrary.

@walteriamusic5556

5 жыл бұрын

Science offers a number of different definitions for the word, Species..... regarding Corn ? We will research this claim ? What We do know is that at least a dozen domesticated plants just suddenly appeared on Earth between 10 to 5 thousand years ago. This is a Fact. Not One (1) Botanist has Ever been able to increase the chromosomes of a Wild Plant and make it a Domesticated Plant...... None ! Yet they have convinced the public at large that the barbarians from 10,000 years ago figured out how to change such wild plants as barley,wheat, oates into domesticated plants..because they had lots of Time over 8 different areas on Earth..... Yet a Botanist has NEVER been able to do it....... Directed Panspermia ???

@aev6075

5 жыл бұрын

@@walteriamusic5556 Not sure if troll, but just go and check out Oenothera gigas for example (literally doubled it's chromosomes)

@walteriamusic5556

5 жыл бұрын

@@aev6075 Thanks for the input.... We checked out the origin & the genetics of the Oe gigas, but We suspect there might be some confusion regarding the terms.... Domesticated plant or different Species of plant.... there seem to be over 100 different species of this plant... but if the exact wild plant has increased its chromosomes enough to be processed and eaten by humans then it would have had to have mutated & evolved to do so.... Where do You see or read the evidence for this claim ?

@aev6075

5 жыл бұрын

@@walteriamusic5556 Being edible wasn't among the original criteria. Regardless, how does edibility matter? Oenothera Gigas is new species like you wanted it to be. We can point the exact moment when this happened like you wanted. It was altered by human beings just like you wanted it to be. All the original criteria were met. Your original claim was false.

@walteriamusic5556

5 жыл бұрын

@@aev6075 Our original claim is Not false... Edible, merely denotes a domesticated plant, like barely or oates which can be processed for human consumption. Domesticated, Not Species...... You stated that You can provide the exact moment when the alternating of the OG took place ? Oh please, do tell ? But most of all, Give the Names of these remarkable botanist who performed this accomplishment. Is he or she, or they, Texans ? This is Great News !! Oh do tell ?

this is guy is so brilliant .... every day i watch this person speaking i become more and more artiest !!! well done retchard keep on !

It's like language. Who was the first French speaker or the first Spanish speaker? People of every generation have spoken the same language as their parents, grandparents, children, and grandchildren. Yet Latin evolved into Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian, and Portuguese in just a couple thousand years.

Dont mess with Dawkins

@forgottenbaguette2670

9 жыл бұрын

I doubt that. And I'm very certain of it.

@999LDS

9 жыл бұрын

***** Do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old .

@999LDS

9 жыл бұрын

***** By the way which God out of the thousands that there have been and the thousands that there will be and the thousands that there are now do you believe in ?

@ThomB50

6 жыл бұрын

999LDS Dawkins is an idiot, he can't even debate.

@sirmeowthelibrarycat

6 жыл бұрын

Bors de Ganys 😡 Use a mirror to see what an idiot really looks like! Pathetic!

Most primitive cultures made up stories to explain life's complex questions. Often it was done in good faith, to provide a metaphor that might be understood by ordinary people. So, in answering the question; 'Where did the wonder of the natural world come from'?, a common answer became that there were spirits or gods that had existed eternally. These stories not much of a problem until vested interests realised that they could be used as a means for controlling a largely uneducated population. Surprisingly, it still works in the 21st century, which is why you find many states have their adopted religion fully integrated as a 'pillar' of the controlling establishment.

Brilliant explanation. Thanks, Richard.

@ariffbasri

3 жыл бұрын

It's like telling kids, 1+1=2, so if you count correctly you all can design & construct a space probe. And all of the kids just like grinning with joy & hooraying, couldnt wait for the next class to build one each. Not knowing what lie in between. What a pity. So pathetic. He can lie to dog, but not me. What a Richshit!

A few honest questions: What are the top theories for how language was acquired? What is the relationship between being self-aware and language? Thanks in advance!

Every so often I re- watch this. It's one of the best demonstrations to explain our ancestry.

Creationists: BUT MUH HOLY BUK!!

For me, the proof of evolution is Elephants and Giraffes. When a species differentiates and can no longer produce live offspring. The African and Indian elephants look very much alike but because they have been separated from each other for so long they can no longer mate with each other and produce live offspring. They are now two distinct branches of evolution. It's the same for Giraffes in different parts of Africa, they can no longer interbreed. It wasn't that the elephants started to change physically from each other it was the mutation of the gene that allowed live offspring to be turned off first and then that lead to differences in the two branches as each adapts to its new environment. I suspect the same was with early hominoids that could successfully interbreed with each other. The genetic code that allowed successful interbreeding was shut off first or an adaptation occurred that could not produce live offspring, then each developed along its own branch although they appeared physically similar to each other. Some lines were successful, others branches just died off. For example Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. There is evidence that at one time they could interbreed. But because of the way modern humans travel through the birth canal, Neanderthal women could not give birth to Homo Sapiens. The Neanderthal woman and their offspring would die from child birth. But Homo Sapiens could give birth to children fathered by Neanderthals. That's why Neanderthal genes are not found in the microindel DNA passed on through the female line. The Neanderthal DNA is only found in the nuclear DNA that follows the male line. It all came down to the shape of the pelvic girdle of Homo Sapien women that allowed the head of the child to rotate before birth. Homo Sapiens are the only mammals that give birth this way.

Not to be disrespectful or flippant about Dawkins remarks (I think he is amazing), but as an aside, he has raddest tie-collection I've ever seen.

What a coincidence! Just finished this book 😊

I don't believe this because my holy book told me we came from dust.

@MontyQueues

8 жыл бұрын

Web -Trawler no you

@MontyQueues

8 жыл бұрын

First of all let me say- but holy books say we are created from dust and mud

@Platinumrings

7 жыл бұрын

And your science book says we were all once fish so...

@ALSmith-zz4yy

7 жыл бұрын

Actually it says we had distant ancestors that were fish.

@joemorley2187

7 жыл бұрын

Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God yes we are partially stardust and it has been proven. This point Niel made wasn't created it was discovered unlike shit in the bible that was created by Stone Age sexist, racist, controlling men.

This one packs a punch. One

@2fast2block

2 жыл бұрын

Creation wins. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

What he said can be very extremely hard to get your head round but it still makes perfect sense.

@ceceroxy2227

2 жыл бұрын

not really

I think Richard Dawkins was the first human.

@marcinhubert2800

3 жыл бұрын

First "homo sapiens" which literally means "wise man" in Latin :)

I understood the problem but we are able to assume that after generations go on, eventually we reach a point where the mutations become so diferent that two subjects cannot reproduce anymore. If those gene mutations are quantifiable, maybe it's possible to assert when the first human was born ( or the first generations or humans ). Sort of who came first, the chicken or the egg = it was the egg, laid by an animal who was not a chicken.

@2006matheusgg

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, but as you said it "generations", so it's not a father/son thing, they will be always in the same species. But sure if you wait awhile you can see the difference (as dawkins said it)

@madeincda

5 жыл бұрын

The rooster came first... How else was the egg produced? Also, it's amazing that these debates still exist and that Darwin had a better grasp on the answer to these questions considering his studies were pre-genetics.

I loved his explanation

@PaulP567, hey, friend, just thought i'd say thanks again for a lively & fun conversation. Be nice to hear from ya every now & then... peace. :)

I really appreciate how Richard uses the female as a force

Creationist logic: hey, if you can’t show me a fish turning into a human in the lab within one human lifetime, then evolution is wrong.

@Adam-mj5hl

3 жыл бұрын

jay I’m not straw manning at all. That’s what creationists actually argue. They say, well, we’ve never seen one kind turn into another....lol, modern human civilization has one been around for 200,00 years. Do you realize that that’s a drop in the bucket in the evolutionary timescale?

@MamaMama-sv3b

2 ай бұрын

It’s just story we and chimp have common ancestor we came from Adam and Eve they used homolgy

this is so brilliant

I'd recommend his book that he is offering to here, The Magic of Reality. I got it for my son, who was 8 at the time, great for non-scientific adults as well. It's a non-academic book thats, concise, clear and entertaining.

@2fast2block

2 жыл бұрын

Does it cover reality or more stoooo-pid things like Dawkins teaches? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzread.info/dash/bejne/imuclKqQk7fdkZc.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

That makes a lot more sense than "poof, god did it"

@brocknelson5521

3 жыл бұрын

In your opinion, how did the first single cell organism come into existence?

@myfather513

3 жыл бұрын

@@brocknelson5521 Although we don't know, I would recommend you to read Oparin Haldane theory, it's plausible and gives some glimpse of what may be the cause.

@brocknelson5521

3 жыл бұрын

@@myfather513 I have done some research on this theory in the past. Amino acids being formed naturally is definitely a big stride forward for naturalists, however, it is worrying scientists cannot remake a single cell organism. If scientists can't do it with prime and customizable conditions how can we expect to faithfully believe nature did?

@samjc9814

3 жыл бұрын

Watch ur mouth

@ROFT

3 жыл бұрын

@@brocknelson5521 go look at Professor Dave Explains' two part response to James Tour's ignorance on the topic

Must be so refreshing for him to be able to share fascinating facts and science to an appreciative audience, rather that attempting to enlighten moronic, god deluded, creationists and flat earth thinkers.

@Mdebacle

2 жыл бұрын

With the development of whole genome sequencing, especially in comparisons of humans and chimpanzees, it is nonsensical to believe in common ancestry of species.

Awesome tie :D

Crazy tie!!!

Fascinating. Great explanation and analogies.

Dawkins is the man who made me athiest.Love you Sir

4 жыл бұрын

He is your prophet.

@adisharr

3 жыл бұрын

@mahdi sabri It's called science and it's constantly changing as w learn new things unlike religion which is nonsense.

That was brilliant.

Wonderful.

What RGB value is the first red color?

@allenstroud7064

8 жыл бұрын

Are you talking about "additive" or "subtractive" color?

@anixias

6 жыл бұрын

Similarly, how much G do you have to add to 255R before it is considered yellow?

I tried to calculate how far back 185 million generations goes back assuming 20 year long generations, then I remembered that the life cycles change depending on what animal you are, so how the hell do you even calculate that?

@RoScFan

6 жыл бұрын

moeman1984 take an average lifespan. 80 for humans, maybe ... idk, 10 for a reptile?

@Flawlessx69

6 жыл бұрын

The average lifespan of a human has nothing to do with how much time lies between two generations. If humans reproduce at 20 years old, then a generation is 20-21 years, no matter if they die at the age of 22 or 80.

@nicougrikify

6 жыл бұрын

youre asking is "when did life start?"

@omp199

6 жыл бұрын

No, he's asking how many years back in time you would need to go to find the ancestors that are 185 million generations back in your family tree.

@galaxyhood4198

6 жыл бұрын

O dam my bad

It's not like this is something new.. It's part of the equation of evolution... it's common sense

A fascinating thought experiment!

Love how he adds 'and a half' after a million years ago, lol

@amritpathak6603

3 жыл бұрын

He means 1.5 million (1 million and 5 hundred thousand years) not 1 million and an extra half year.

Funny, listening to this, why just the other day, I was telling my bother, imaging how all our genes, make us who we are, and are inherited from all our past parents reaching back as far as time, how we are all related or connected at some point in time...I always love it when very intelligent educated people , like Dr. Dawkins express such sentiments etc...I enjoyed this very much, thank you !!

Brilliant analogy.

Nothing else ever written before or since has ever brought joy and peace to a person.

I don’t get it. Certainly people exist now and there certainly were no people when our fish ancestors were around. So, when was the first person?

@vladiwanli

Жыл бұрын

There isn't a first person. He answered it very well.

@Homo_sAPEien

Жыл бұрын

@@vladiwanli No, he did not explain it well. I say that as a fan of him but, he did not explain this well.

@johnnymittle

Жыл бұрын

@@Homo_sAPEien The problem is, if you pick a theoretical 'first person' then someone who say, 'nope, the father of that was the first person,' they would have a good case. And then if someone else came in and said, 'nope, the grandfather of that was the first person,' they also would have a good case because the genes are so similar.

@Homo_sAPEien

Жыл бұрын

@@johnnymittle Right so, when was the first person is a debatable matter but, by any reasonable definition, it was sometime after our lineage split from the chimpanzees lineage.

That's interesting. "Allah doesn't need my recognition" Actually, if every singe religious text, artifact and person were to vanish from existence and all memory of such with it, Allah would need my recognition. If people never knew about him, then he would never be able to enter our minds because he DOESN'T interact with us. In order for there to be a God, there has to be people willing to follow that God. So yes, Allah needs my recognition and I am doing fine with out him as far as existing.

@shashishekhar----

3 жыл бұрын

@Jack Mehoff He is proud of it.

I find is incredibly hard to understand how Christians can be confused about this video.. Richard was brilliant with his explanation.

@WayneLynch69 Where did the talking snake appear in the evolutionary line?

'Do you have a picture of the fish?' What a stupid question!!

@michaelqdlap

3 жыл бұрын

I think that was a prompt for someone to change the slide

so my grand. grand.... grand parent was a fish? and even before that, before there were any types of cells, he was cosmic dust... Such a fascinating thought!

Biological proof of what Alan Watts says in one lecture, that every organism's experience​ is the human experience.

Beautiful 💓💓💓

That's awesome :) Glad to hear that. Since you have an open mind, do you ever read about evolution and cosmology to study the evidence for yourself? I was a creationists until I was around 24. I read the book The Age of the Earth, which had a very interesting history of all the theories about the earth's age and how they were developed. The early stabs at an age were mere guesses, and then we had rough ranges, and the age we have today is very well supported by multiple sources of evidence.

Going through the comments is pretty funny. Good video for those with an open mind.

@damongreville2197

4 жыл бұрын

An "open mind" in this case refers to those who have had all their brains blown out by the wind.

@monstersnest8726

4 жыл бұрын

@jozier bell a scientific theory is a fact because its essentially a hypothesis that has been tested over and over and over producing the same results thus being bumped up to a scientific theory. Biggest misconception of the word theory but many do not understand that in science a theory has an entire different meaning. In science a theory is a FACT and has been confirmed a fact through repeated testing.

@monstersnest8726

4 жыл бұрын

@jozier bell I am no scientist and I would not be able to apply the scientific method in a lab for research nor have I dedicated my life to studying and researching science, however i do have a basic understanding of scientific principles and the scientific method and evolution does not happen overnight but instead over a course of time. Species evolve and have evolved for a better chance at survival. The galapagos iguanas that ended up on the islands eventually evolved due to their new challenging aquatic environment. There is evidence out there and much that I wouldn't be able to deliberate on simply because I lack the tools of knowledge in those areas. For example fossils, I have a basic understanding however I would not be able to explain the reason why the fossil happened in the first place because it is not my area of study. Do some people say fossils were implanted on earth to deceive people, sure, but the experts who have spent most of their time studying the subject and getting a degree in the subject would be a more credible source for me. Same goes with DNA and common ancestry.

@monstersnest8726

4 жыл бұрын

@jozier bell but a scientific theory is a fact, no doubt about it...

well, it is your point of view, there is older things written that also brings joy to some people, and the joy of someone depends on himself, many many books have different reaction to different people!

"You cannot prove anything to 100% truth" I can prove 100% that gravity exists. 100 out of 100 - idiots jumping from a bridge all fall toward earth - 100%. A true and factual statement. Only SOME things can not be proven 100%, like past events that cant yet be replicated.

Adam was the first human.

@jameswright...

Жыл бұрын

Adam never existed proven by genetics.

@skillethead6968

Жыл бұрын

@@jameswright... Keep telling yourself that if you want I suppose.

@jameswright...

Жыл бұрын

@@skillethead6968 I will because my opinion is evidence based proven fact. Fact accepted by most Christians and Jews and non religious and atheist. Adam never existed proven by genetics/dna. But you keep telling yourself otherwise if it keeps your delusional myths alive.

@skillethead6968

Жыл бұрын

@@jameswright... Yeah I well especially while I'm still here on Earth amongst none believers such as yourself, who mock what the actual truth is and you'd be free too hold on to your delusional nonsense you think there's evidence for when your permanently separated from the Father.

@benedibrava

Жыл бұрын

how bad humanity has got you have to tell people that it takes man and woman to have more men and women come on people, thats how you got life bible has the real description of reality

Im scouring the comments for triggered creationists

@Mdebacle

2 жыл бұрын

Did you know that devout evolutionists in Leipzig unwittingly discovered that Neanderthals and Denisovans were 15-16th human and 1-16th chimpanzee ?

This is the best description of what happened. Everything is of the same design. The real question that is what we are bound by is, how did this design come to being? Was it just the design was evolutionary the best. Or was it the design of the creater or a third party to the design, that could have been anything? But it was of the same design. Or is this design a normal type of the universe. And someday we will encounter other life that is somewhat like us. Thanks

you are really epic and smart, Richard!