Richard Dawkins: Who Was the First Human?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- Complete video at: fora.tv/confere...
Biologist and author Richard Dawkins presents a thought experiment to explain human origins. Following each generation backwards across millions of years of evolution, Dawkins shows why no species -- including homo sapiens -- can truly be said to have a "first" ancestor.
-----
What Is Reality? Richard Dawkins talks with Henry Finder. Presented in collaboration with the New Yorker Festival, on October 1, 2011.
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and the author of the Times best-selling books The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, and The Greatest Show on Earth. His new book, The Magic of Reality, an illustrated science guide for adults and young people, comes out in October. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and of the Royal Society of Literature.
Henry Finder is the editorial director of The New Yorker.
Dawkins is not only an excellent scientist, but also an excellent communicator. I could listen to him for hours.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.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 is someone with very limited knowledge about Creationism and hence he recently said he now believes creation happened.
@@rodgersshazhira741 what do you smoke? Get of it .
richard is scientists
he still think evolutionism is science
@@benedibrava As I showed, he can't get around BASIC science.
Evolution is soooo much more fascinating than any creation myth
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.
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!
+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).
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.
Mike Ruggieri
If you're talking to me, you're speaking to an anti-theist, who wants a sky burial.
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.
GamingAndGeeking you made that a little earlier for me to understand exactly what he was saying so thanks!
Kelly101Girl I'm pleased! :)
Good analogy
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 .
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.
He explains it so well, a child could understand. Yet some adults cannot comprehend... lol
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.
agree with @Rune Walsh. Can not or will not understand?
I child would be easily deceived by it, but an educated, thinking adult would see the fallacies.
It's because of childhood brainwashing, also know as teaching a child religion.
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.
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.
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.
@@ajoseph87 Animals are property. They are here to serve and entertain us.
@@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...
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.
“I personally do not understand evolution so it must be wrong”
- creationists
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.
I can say the same to you. Have you tried to understand the Bible the way it is meant to
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.
i'll read it and will try to understand and will go all the way with it.
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. 🐒🐒🐒🐒😂😂😂😂
The clock and toddler metaphors are good. Recording them in my head.
The teenager one not so good. You become a teenager the day you turn 13.
@@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.
@@Brandon75689 meaning?
@@andyng5321 Meaning he's desperately trying to make it work with inane pedantry.
@@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.
That's the best explanations of evolution I've ever heard from him. Always learning.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.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/
... and you desperately need to learn a lot.
Evolution is the most elegant, beautiful and interesting concept. It really is the greatest show on earth 🌎
Exactly, concept
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.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/
Eh, that show only got interesting near the end. The first 80% of runtime was pretty boring.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian
@@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
Yes it’s great. The blind watchmaker and the shellfish gene too
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.
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.
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.
yesz his typinig sukcs balz
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.
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. ua-cam.com/video/7IG33MRZEYA/v-deo.html
You can hear the mans punctuation through every sentence. Couldn’t explain this any better.
Nice v taper
Creationist: we are not animals
Meanwhile an orangutan is learning to use sign language
@dynamike yes!
@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.
@@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.
Smarter than the creationist. !!!!!!
@@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.😂
Richard Dawkins is a living treasure.
The incredible way as he explains proves that no one has to be a genius to understand evolution.
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
Truly amazing! Science flies you to the Moon, Religion flies you in to sky scrapers!
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!
True science flies you to the moon. Evolution science is of no use.
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.
yup...you can tell he gets into a roll very easily with this stuff
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?
let me put it in another word , he is skilled in telling fat lies and make em digiestible to people like yourself
@TheIsmaelIsaac
And you're skilled to blindly accept b.s. that's been shoved up your ass since you were a baby.
@@legendarypussydestroyer6943 Well said. Creationist: "2+2=4" is a lie. Bloody fucking stupid.
Wonderful way of conceptualizing evolution. Thank you Dawkins.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.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/
Thank you Richard Dawkins.
Slowly eroding religious stupidity one day at a time
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.
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.
Evidence for what, Science or stories?
john doe I'm saying there is plenty evidence for evolution which would be science across many fields.
I agree, there is evidence everywhere.
jozier bell maybe because you havn't looked at the evidence or are to ignorant to look at it you idiot.
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.
Richard Dawkins is the best, I have never seen him failing in any arguments.... Genius Genius
If you think he is genius you have yet to leave second grade or do any research.
@@gennymikel4296 me or you think wisely
@@gennymikel4296 Sorry, Are you questioning an Evolutionary Biologist about evolution? quick follow-up, What are you a professional at?
Neo atheists are idiots. He has never won an argument.
What a WONDERFUL ANSWER! BRAVO
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.
There were probably first humans, not just a first human. Humans were most likely created in various locations around the world in the beginning.
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.
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 ???
@@walteriamusic5556 Not sure if troll, but just go and check out Oenothera gigas for example (literally doubled it's chromosomes)
@@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 ?
@@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.
@@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 ?
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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?
@@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.
Brilliant. This is how you make a long story short. Properly.
what a wonderful mind and educator, I love listening to Richard talking.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.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/
Dawkins is great at explaining things to me (as if I were a four year old). Thanks ForaTv.
I could listen to this guy all day 😎
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.
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.
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.
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?
@@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.
I had the same question and I was looking for the answer. Then, I found this video. Thank you very much for uploading. 💖💐
I don't believe this because my holy book told me we came from dust.
Web -Trawler
no you
First of all let me say-
but holy books say we are created from dust and mud
And your science book says we were all once fish so...
Actually it says we had distant ancestors that were fish.
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.
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.
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.
Brilliantly explained.
Dont mess with Dawkins
I doubt that. And I'm very certain of it.
***** Do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old .
***** 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 ?
999LDS
Dawkins is an idiot, he can't even debate.
Bors de Ganys 😡 Use a mirror to see what an idiot really looks like! Pathetic!
NOTICE! Before answering creationist posts - ask yourself ''is it really worth your time.. could I be doing something more productive".
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.
that shit was enlightening
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?
moeman1984 take an average lifespan. 80 for humans, maybe ... idk, 10 for a reptile?
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.
youre asking is "when did life start?"
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.
O dam my bad
There should still be a first human. You just need to define human very well.
Or... what makes apes NOT human?
There are lots of things which exist on a spectrum, what Dawkins is suggesting is that if something exists on a spectrum than it cannot be defined. If Dawkins is correct than biologists shouldn’t demarcate.
Every so often I re- watch this. It's one of the best demonstrations to explain our ancestry.
Dawkins is the man who made me athiest.Love you Sir
He is your prophet.
@mahdi sabri It's called science and it's constantly changing as w learn new things unlike religion which is nonsense.
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.
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)
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.
What he said can be very extremely hard to get your head round but it still makes perfect sense.
not really
I think Richard Dawkins was the first human.
First "homo sapiens" which literally means "wise man" in Latin :)
What a coincidence! Just finished this book 😊
brilliant Richard, once again
Are u still alive?
this is guy is so brilliant .... every day i watch this person speaking i become more and more artiest !!! well done retchard keep on !
That makes a lot more sense than "poof, god did it"
In your opinion, how did the first single cell organism come into existence?
@@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.
@@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?
Watch ur mouth
@@brocknelson5521 go look at Professor Dave Explains' two part response to James Tour's ignorance on the topic
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.
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?
It’s just story we and chimp have common ancestor we came from Adam and Eve they used homolgy
Creationists: BUT MUH HOLY BUK!!
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.
I really appreciate how Richard uses the female as a force
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.
@Jack Mehoff He is proud of it.
Fascinating as always Mr Dawkins!
It’s so much more interesting and exciting than nonsensical religious explanations for our existence.
I'm not sure that is true, or it's worth looking at in such a way. The creation myths are pretty interesting in their own way. They say a lot about humans. Of course there is far more depth in terms of the actual scientific understanding of things. But they are different. One is science/biology and the other is mythology/folklore.
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!
@@ariffbasri if you say so......
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.
With the development of whole genome sequencing, especially in comparisons of humans and chimpanzees, it is nonsensical to believe in common ancestry of species.
'Do you have a picture of the fish?' What a stupid question!!
I think that was a prompt for someone to change the slide
Nothing else ever written before or since has ever brought joy and peace to a person.
Love how he adds 'and a half' after a million years ago, lol
He means 1.5 million (1 million and 5 hundred thousand years) not 1 million and an extra half year.
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!
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 !!
Biological proof of what Alan Watts says in one lecture, that every organism's experience is the human experience.
Fascinating. Great explanation and analogies.
Going through the comments is pretty funny. Good video for those with an open mind.
An "open mind" in this case refers to those who have had all their brains blown out by the wind.
@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.
@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.
@jozier bell but a scientific theory is a fact, no doubt about it...
That is AWESOME!!!
What difference does it make who was first or last. The Guy that invented the wheel was the important one.
I really wonder how will the life of “the last human” look like
And if it’ll be in a few thousand years of in several milion
Adam followed by Eve followed by the snake followed by the apple. I know. i was there.
+chais jo then go back to clay and hot gas came from god's ass which caused clay to became human
no it all started with abiogenisis....Richard Dawkins saw it and he don't lie
it wasn't a snake. that's an incorrect translation of the text. the bible says it was a serpent, the Hebrew word being "nahash", in Roman alphabet. it is reasonable to assume that the creature was reptilian in nature, but not that it was a snake, per se.
So amazing.
What RGB value is the first red color?
Are you talking about "additive" or "subtractive" color?
Similarly, how much G do you have to add to 255R before it is considered yellow?
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.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.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/
Im scouring the comments for triggered creationists
Did you know that devout evolutionists in Leipzig unwittingly discovered that Neanderthals and Denisovans were 15-16th human and 1-16th chimpanzee ?
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.
adam and eve
6000 years ago
That's a religious belief, not science. You're perfectly fine to have a religion. Scientists don't come to your church or your doorstep to tell you what you should believe.
@@publiozinj4882 no, that is all evidences shows. evidences only give earth 6000 years and it takes a man and a woman to give you life (come on, its so obvious, in beginning there was man and woman), today humans have turned everything fake include science. if you want to live a decent, intelligent, truthful, and valuable life, see things contrary to mainstream. scientist? that job doesn't exist anymore, now they all economists and politicians. people like you who follow humans, are the most dangerous people on earth, people like you have caused so many problems to this planet, from being soldiers to being students for humans, commiting atrocities and carrying out lies
@@benedibrava It's ok that you're stupid
lol
@@benedibravayou are delusional
It's not like this is something new..
It's part of the equation of evolution... it's common sense
I almost do not want to accept the sceince but its the reality , somehow sad because we want their to be afterlife .
'Be happy for this moment. This moment is your life'. - Omar Khayyam
Adam was the first human.
SpyWhoLovedHimself "Intended as a metaphor"
I'd like to see a source on that.
The first human was Tarzan.
Adam was the first human
wildoxidizer Did Adam come up with his own name? Because as the first human I would have picked a name that wasn't so boring.
Obamadon
pretty sure God named him comes from the red earth...
Dawkins, i know your smart, but you didn't prove anything yet. Its all in your mind, you cant even prove how life began, you might have millions of followers that believes in you, still you will be judge someday, and all of you atheist will regret someday. ✌
Visit a museum or read a book on evolution. It might save you making silly remarks
neil beeline i already did. Still not proven. 😌
Jennyeenie Cuaresma I highly doubt Dawkins will become a judge one day. He would have to drop all his research and go back to law school and work his way up. It’s not easy becoming a judge.
These people think that they know the answer are in acutal fact very stupid. Its like if someone said to you split yourself into 3 groups. Red, blue, and neutral. The idiots of religions go off into blue and the idiot atheists go into red. The scientists, doctors and smart people go into neutral because they have no understanding of what they are being asked. The people in neutral watch the atheists and religious types killing each other with rocks and stones while they sit down and have a discussion about what red and blue could symbolise, and mean on a deeper level. This is essentially what is happening on this comment section.
@@Jblah Lol according to my dads religion you would end up in hell and he would end up in hell according to yours. Honestly who cares, you can all go end up in hell if you actually believe that some magic guy who refuses to reveal himself to humans will condem them to eternal fire for not having had the right parents with the right religion or simply not speaking particular language that your god speaks decides is the correct language. Lets not forget that the original bible is written in old Aramaic and not English, what you are reading is some English guys interpretation of what it says and its not actually the word of god unless god was a brittish man or something like a Texan which i strongly doubt.
Perhaps I cannot tell when I was a baby, an adolescent and an adult; but it does not change the fact that there are agents, that is, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins etc, that can objectively relate that fact to me along with all the characteristics I displayed at each stage. That alone is enough to challenge Mr. Dawkins argument.
So because your uncle can confirm that you were once a child, therefore there is a problem with evolution? Have I got that quite right?
This one packs a punch. One
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
So many millions of years in the making.. If only some humans would understand the scale of time. 🤘🤘
His name was Bert and he lived in Basingstoke
Might be a little high here but when my guy richard said "its the same as looking at the hour hand on your watch. You cant see it move but if you wait for an hour then look at it again, you find that it has moved, and thats like evolution" I was just astounded
easy to please maybe lmfao
This reply is for picturepainter, which post is at the end of this reply.
Don’t try to tag me as a troll, I’m not. In addition, I stand firm on the fact that the Bible is a compendium of mystery writings, and they all were written in symbols and allegories, and shouldn’t be taken literally .
In my original post, I clearly stated that both Creationists and Evolutionists can’t realize the difference between Physical Form, and the Life-Energy which uses that Form in order to manifest and Evolve. Which means that for something to evolve, whether a human form or an object, it had to be created first.
Then I proceeded to illustrate how the first chapter of Genesis shows that fact, which unfortunately neither Creationists or Evolutionists see it that way, because both camps are so entrenched in their point of view, that they can’t see the obvious that is right in front of their face.
As it’s stated in The first chapter of Genesis, the Evolution of the Human FORM, started in the Mineral stage, and progressively went through the Plant and Animal stages, until it reached the Human Stage, in what was written as “Days” which Creationists maintain they are days of 24 hours. In reality those “Days” are Periods of Trillions of Years, due to the fact that at the beginning of this Cycle, Evolution proceeded at a very slow pace. So the Human Form was seen as being created LAST in the Sixth Day.
In the second chapter of Genesis relates to the Life, or Energy aspect of the Human Life Wave, which entered this Evolutionary Cycle first, so the Human Life appeared FIRST, followed by the Animal, Plant and Mineral Life Waves. Since we are all Energy Fields, and Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, The Energy Field known as Jehovah, worked to form the Mineral Physical Body at the stage it had Evolved so far, and the Human Energy Field entered in it as having already being there and Evolved, NOT created, to that point.
That Physical Body didn’t resemble anything to the one we use at present, neither our Consciousness. The Evolution of our Consciousness is told in chapter five of Genesis.
For more, you can read my original post.
Peace.
DT
---
picturepainter
Deep Thinker, you essentially said: "Don't take the Bible literally." Taking a Bible passage literally would be as silly as taking a song lyric literally. When George Michael sang the words "Last Christmas I gave you my heart" he wasn't talking about a literal organ donation to a hospital. Most people would have the sense to realize that the lyric is a metaphor. On the subject of taking words to heart, I've come to the conclusion that anti-evolution comments on UA-cam videos aren't being written by genuine creationists. The comments are being written by trolls PRETENDING to be creationists. Since creationists are reputed to be a stubborn lot, I don't think a real creationist would waste time watching a video about something they don't believe and then go to the extra trouble of writing a comment saying "I don't believe this." Since I accept evolution, I don't bother watching creationist videos. (And I've been informed that creationist videos don't allow comments anyway.)
Deep Thinker, I didn't tag you as a troll. You sound like you believe in evolution. But you have to admit comments like "Evolution is a fairytale" sound like the kind of thing a troll would write. I don't watch creationist videos because I think it's a waste of time to sit through a video about something I don't believe in. So it's logical to conclude that real creationists wouldn't be watching evolution videos either.
There's no first. We always keep evolving like society does.
I find is incredibly hard to understand how Christians can be confused about this video.. Richard was brilliant with his explanation.
I don't get why this is so hard (that people don't understand they come from fish)... Just look at an apple pie. It's a pie. Now look at it while it's in the oven. It's still a pie. Now look at it halfway through making it. It's not a pie, but you can clearly see pie ingrediants. Now look at the apple tree, or the wheat field. Now look at the apple seed or the wheat seed. Cleary not pie, nor pie ingrediants. Shit can (and does) change over time. Not hard to grasp at all.
Well if the only thing you ever learned anywhere is:
God did it
God did it
God did it
God did it
You’ll have some mental blocks
(This of course doesnt excuse you)
@@mcplesk8765 amen...
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!
Sadly, if he does not repent, he will be so lonely and broken on his death bed. On his journey out of this world, there won't be any one to cheer him on. The very miracle you deny will come back to reclaim it's own
Yep, he's leading others to the same.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.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/
Adam is the first human being on earth.No doubt.
@Ricahrd P'Brien
No need to, because Adam's history predated the homosapien theory that was made up in the 16th century.
When he said "your 185 millionth grandfather was a fish" I laughed so hard.
It's true, but the way he said it was amusing.
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.
He can lie to dog, but not me. What a Richshit!
(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
so if there was no first person then is the book written in third person?
"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.
One of the creationist arguments that really makes me laugh is their argument that only micro-evolution occurs within a species. They fail to realise that micro and macro evolution are the same thing and that our division of the two is purely an artificial distinction.
We'll astute. They of tiny brain need to just adjust their size.
This is fantastic. Got the audiobook, can’t wait to listen to it.
SpongeBob Imagination Ok thanks..