I first discovered Richard Dawkins when South Park took the piss out of him a couple of years ago. I've since come to love him as much as any heterosexual man can love another heterosexual man. My biggest fear in life is that one of us will die before I get the chance to meet him in person. I pray, in a metaphorical sense of course, that we each survive long enough for me to actually meet this outstanding man face to face. Thanks for making this video available on UA-cam.
This effort is neccessary as there indeed are huge philosophical differences between these positions. The main difference: Evolutionary Darwinism: despriptive; describing how species evolved Social Darwinism: prescriptive; prescribing how we should live and treat our fellow beings
To those who criticize the theory of evolution because it is associated with rutlessness, callousness, selfishness, etc. Dawkins argues that we should build a society that deliberately avoids these aspects of The Darwinian theory. I would argue that these aspects of nature have been observed since long before Darwin and are not a prediction of his theory, but inputs to the theory. So the "leftists" mentioned in this video, and creationists like Wendy Wright, could be more effectively refuted
"one aspect of evolution we witness tonight is that certain types of biologists, in order to survive and thrive are required by natural selection to aquire very thick skin. This in order to protect him from that most fierst of contemporary predators: the small brained creationist." brilliant!
Hawking attended a conference on cosmology is 1981 at the Vatican. The pope (John Paul II) said that (from A Brief History of Time p120) "He told us it that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation... I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference ... which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.
Thanks for posting this video! I would have liked to be at the book festival myself, but unfortunately couldn't make it. It was great to be able to experience your reading nevertheless! I'm currently reading 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and am absolutely fascinated by all the facts presented. Makes me want to read on about evolution. This book already is one of my favourite and most beloved books!
What a great man Dawkins is! He can explain all these principles and answer objections to them, while sitting in what looks like the least comfortable chair ever seen on a stage.
I am reading this book. Very interesting and informative. It also has references for its claims. You can tell a scientist has written it. I strongly recommend it.
Thank you for setting Halipalas straight in my absence--I had to write a paper for my Bus. Comm. class (and in my off time, I had to read an EXCELLENT book entitled "The Greatest Show on Earth." I highly recommend it...I'm now reading "The Selfish Gene," which was R.D.'s first book, I think (it's nice to know three GREAT things happened the year it was written: 200 years of the U.S., R. Dawkins writes down his brilliance in book form, and ME) ;) (I also carry the obnoxious gene) ;)
the evolutionary process so you are unlikely to see any human changes, but Chapter 7 is dedicated to human evolution from our common ancestor with Chimps. And if you want to know about evolution that we have witnessed, chapter 5 is about evolutionary changes that have occurred within living memory, including a rather brilliant long-term experiment involving bacteria.
@TheChipmunk2008 She didn't say it was horrible or anything, she thought it was an interesting little story relating to her previous speech, and then she said that guys should make an effort not to be creepy. (She had been talking about how too many flirty boys can make girls feel uncomfertable in the community.) She was not whining, and Dawkins only put himself in a bad light, he obviously didn't understand the context, as he sais himself. A lot of drama for small stuff really.
Actually, it has been done in a way, by groups colonising islands and establishing isolated populations. A founder effect. The Pacific Islands are good example of this. I realise it's not "domestic" as such, but still shows what happens to small genetically isolated populations.
Well, the filters we acquire as adults are learned (i think), so you can get bad filters or have no filters. Yeah, I think tribal loyalty is a large part of the problem too. Conservative theists tend to rank loyalty higher on their list of priorities than freethinkers do. Loyalty can be a good survival trait, but it gets in the way when you want to adopt better survival traits.
Actually I seem to remember that Hawking takes god is sort of the same sense that Einstein did, (although I can't find the specific quote) I remember him talking about how God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe and that if He did exist he would have to obey the laws of physics.
Is he making his way to Vancouver? I checked his site and doesn't show any scheduled book signings in Canada.. How did you find out that he was coming to Toronto?
About the narrative imagination: its hard to answer questions live. I get confused and forget what i was about to say, but the answer to me seems easy enough. We are naturally good at remembering stories because thats how we learn what to do in the past. If we see someone get eaten by the shark we know to avoid sharks. Now we are social animals that live in tribes and tribes that would have story telling could teach other people better ergo aiding survival ergo evolution of narration
@KenEdMurray Serious scientists very rarely speak in absolutes. It is more or less only the mathematicians who really can do that safely. Good science is not about saying "I am right, this evidence proves it" but rather it is saying that "I have a theory, and this evidence supports it, but you are welcome to try and disprove me, if you can". That is, of course, assuming that the person who will try to disprove the theory is equally objective and dispassionate.
Another example is we've discover that fossil fuels are dangerous only after we became dependant on them. It's difficult to replace something we're dependant on without an immediate threat (although dogma is also contributing to the lack of change). Plus the problem of coordinating with ~6.7 billion people.
Remember you are a human biological organism so it is OK to both give and experience emotions. Dawkins has always said that he would not want to live in a purely Darwinian society.
I can think of one instance of selective human breeding that did have an impact on human physiology, and that was the awful North American slave trade. People were treated like farm animals and bread for size and strength, which has resulted in the incredibly powerful physiques of African Americans. I am not a scientist or have empirical proof of this idea, i'm going purely on observation and anecdote. For anyone trying to spin this comment, I am not racist and i do not condone slavery.
@keepthefunk Dawkins doesnt tell lies, HE EXPOSES THEM. Some people would just rather ignore the truth and keep their fairy tales. Religious people and their fairy tales is like a baby with its blankey
love the sarah palin joke at the beginning. So easy and bashing her just doesnt get old. At least not yet, lol The question is such a good one after all
Richard Dawkins is a good scientist for looking at all points of view seriously. but if a person ( or group ) repeatedly talk at the crockduck level stop listening. for the health of your brain. stop.
I forgot to say BLASPHEMERS !!! Shirt is almost shit, wheras tie is almost time, the fire in which we burn ! So it is obvious that we must follow the tie and not the shirt, anything else is just cherry picking.
The first quote is very true if you think about it.How can we get fossils of the little proteins and RNA that were the first living things derived from non organic matter? So that statement does not discredit evolution a bit. Sorry try again Halkipalas. Cheers!
@tgdavisReally,you really would want another human to have his skin peel off ond his eyeballs pop out for all eternity in eternal agony,what a wonderful example of humanity you are,a sterling benchmark.
ok sorry I got mixed up, somewhere Dawkins said we evolved from chimps, so if it otherwise then fine. a great youtuber sent me a PM saying we shared an ancestor of chimps, ok then, he also said that the first life was hardly intelligent, and was a single cell organism. My question to that is who made this single cell organism? Sorry to coming a bit too aggressive
I thought biofluorescent mice as pets would be more popular by now. I always thought a hairless cat species that was biofluorescent would pop up somewhere.
Darwin didn't write about "survival of the fittest." That phrase is a sensationalized version of "natural selection," which is the principle on which evolution is based. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, and people should really stop saying that. It's an easy over-simplification that a lot of people are taught in school. In truth, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor that is neither a modern human nor a modern chimp. They evolved separately based on separate stimuli.
Evolution, be it of organism or of mind, of subatomic matter or of the cosmos as a whole, reflects the pervasive role of process which is central both to the nature of our world and to the terms in which it must be understood. Change pervades nature.The passage of time leaves neither individuals nor types (species) of things statically invariant.
26:50 The number of pairwise combinations of 2 million is 4 trillion? That would include pairs with itself (duck with duck) and double pairs (crocodile with duck and duck with crocodile). It's more like 1999999000000 combinations. Sorry to nitpick :)
I know that we didnt evolve from chimps. I was replying to a comment and im sorry if i implyed that we evolved from chimps. I was debating someone who thought that us evolving from chimps as opposed to australepithicus aferensis was not a big difference when it comes to the presence of chimps today.
ganteng. Not that it would make a real big dent on the magnitude of your ignorance but it would a tiny one if you at least got the name right! If you need help with that...it's in the name of this channel and also in pretty big letters at the top! Right above the video!!!
also, no accredited quality, top tier university (top 100) offers a degree in "christian science" because christian science is theology and that's offered at a religious school. get your terms correct.
With The God Delusion being so popular, it is always going to be brought up... I feel a bit sorry for Dawkins. He's like an actor who's trying to break out of his long time sitcom role. People forget Dawkins is a scientist first and foremost, and 99% of his work has been on science, not religion. Genetic engineering is very intriguing. There's a big stigmatism with it though. It'd be quite possible to create a real life super hero though (strength, bones, intelligence, vision, etc).
This is as close as I have heard Dawkins come to endorsing human biodiversity. The question is not should society be ruled by Darwinian competition. The question is do human differences matter. If you accept a genetic contribution to intelligence and that genes like MAOA cause violent behavior, then core liberal ideas simply will not work. Dawkins' obsession with creationists makes it seem like he is avoiding the tougher, deeper issues.
Receiving a transplant INTERspecies doesn't mean that the organ being transplanted will not reject, and last time I heard, all humans had 100% the same genetic makeup, so your contention is misleading. Also, I would love the specifics on this 2002 study that you sited as showing a 5% difference in chimp/human genome--I'm wondering why this study's findings haven't made their way into the most current textbooks on the subject.
That woman at the beginning was AWESOME! As usual, Richard is the man!
That was, by far, the best introduction of Mr Dawkins I've ever seen hehe. Loved it. =)
That lady giving the introduction is something else, Its like watching your drill instructor jokes, so dead pan, so serious.
Time is brief for me right now. I may never get back to watching this whole video, but I already plan to read this book in July of 10'. Thanks.
I first discovered Richard Dawkins when South Park took the piss out of him a couple of years ago. I've since come to love him as much as any heterosexual man can love another heterosexual man.
My biggest fear in life is that one of us will die before I get the chance to meet him in person. I pray, in a metaphorical sense of course, that we each survive long enough for me to actually meet this outstanding man face to face.
Thanks for making this video available on UA-cam.
I'm in the last chapter of the book now, I really enjoyed it so far and I learned a lot from it.
Thanks Richard
he loves his crocoduck tie XD!!!!! i do too love it hahahah
hes voice is the only one wich is in my head while im reading his books. in other books i hear my voice. stange, but his retorics just too awesome.
This effort is neccessary as there indeed are huge philosophical differences between these positions. The main difference:
Evolutionary Darwinism: despriptive; describing how species evolved
Social Darwinism: prescriptive; prescribing how we should live and treat our fellow beings
To those who criticize the theory of evolution because it is associated with rutlessness, callousness, selfishness, etc. Dawkins argues that we should build a society that deliberately avoids these aspects of The Darwinian theory. I would argue that these aspects of nature have been observed since long before Darwin and are not a prediction of his theory, but inputs to the theory. So the "leftists" mentioned in this video, and creationists like Wendy Wright, could be more effectively refuted
"one aspect of evolution we witness tonight is that certain types of biologists, in order to survive and thrive are required by natural selection to aquire very thick skin. This in order to protect him from that most fierst of contemporary predators: the small brained creationist."
brilliant!
Hawking attended a conference on cosmology is 1981 at the Vatican. The pope (John Paul II) said that (from A Brief History of Time p120) "He told us it that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation... I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference ... which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.
Thanks for posting this video! I would have liked to be at the book festival myself, but unfortunately couldn't make it. It was great to be able to experience your reading nevertheless! I'm currently reading 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and am absolutely fascinated by all the facts presented. Makes me want to read on about evolution. This book already is one of my favourite and most beloved books!
Ended up watching this instead of turning up to an evolution and molecular systematics lecture. Dawkins rocks!
What a great man Dawkins is! He can explain all these principles and answer objections to them, while sitting in what looks like the least comfortable chair ever seen on a stage.
I am reading this book. Very interesting and informative. It also has references for its claims. You can tell a scientist has written it. I strongly recommend it.
Thank you for setting Halipalas straight in my absence--I had to write a paper for my Bus. Comm. class (and in my off time, I had to read an EXCELLENT book entitled "The Greatest Show on Earth." I highly recommend it...I'm now reading "The Selfish Gene," which was R.D.'s first book, I think (it's nice to know three GREAT things happened the year it was written: 200 years of the U.S., R. Dawkins writes down his brilliance in book form, and ME) ;)
(I also carry the obnoxious gene) ;)
that lady was pretty funny in the beginning lol dawkins was awesome as usual
@MrKGatl
I think you got me wrong - I was replying to Baalzoels "truth and logic are devoid of kindness". Dawkins is the man!
I'm on the left and I think Dawkins is fantastic. He always makes the effort to distinguish between Evolutionary Darwinism and Social Darwinism.
That tie is the greatest invention of this century
Another great read if you can get it is Ludovic Kennedy's "All in the Mind" A farewell to God. first published in 1999 by Hodder and Stoughton.
the evolutionary process so you are unlikely to see any human changes, but Chapter 7 is dedicated to human evolution from our common ancestor with Chimps.
And if you want to know about evolution that we have witnessed, chapter 5 is about evolutionary changes that have occurred within living memory, including a rather brilliant long-term experiment involving bacteria.
i cant beleive i missed this :(
i only live like 20 minutes away from edinburgh!
@keepthefunk That was my line, about truth and logic having no inherent kindness. And yes, Dawkins is the man.
@TheChipmunk2008 She didn't say it was horrible or anything, she thought it was an interesting little story relating to her previous speech, and then she said that guys should make an effort not to be creepy. (She had been talking about how too many flirty boys can make girls feel uncomfertable in the community.) She was not whining, and Dawkins only put himself in a bad light, he obviously didn't understand the context, as he sais himself.
A lot of drama for small stuff really.
Choosing the red pill is such a perfect analogy, well done sir.
I agree, kutlulzak. I'm just pointing out that we're not all bad, and that other species do similiar bad things if they have the advantage to do so.
Actually, it has been done in a way, by groups colonising islands and establishing isolated populations. A founder effect. The Pacific Islands are good example of this. I realise it's not "domestic" as such, but still shows what happens to small genetically isolated populations.
welcome to scotland richard :)
'The hard of thinking' - love it!
Great presentation!
I love his tie. What a guy.
Well, the filters we acquire as adults are learned (i think), so you can get bad filters or have no filters.
Yeah, I think tribal loyalty is a large part of the problem too. Conservative theists tend to rank loyalty higher on their list of priorities than freethinkers do. Loyalty can be a good survival trait, but it gets in the way when you want to adopt better survival traits.
Richard Dawkins please come to Canada!
Yes, I have The God Delusion in a translated version, and it was very hard to read
Yes, that's true at least for me ^^ It's just relaxing to sit and listen, but to read is kinda different
01:45 ... "detailing the evolutionary process in a way that would be fully accessible to the hard-of-thinking" LOL!
Yes, that was the side of the arguement that i fell on. The person i was debating thought that there would still be an abundance
Actually I seem to remember that Hawking takes god is sort of the same sense that Einstein did, (although I can't find the specific quote) I remember him talking about how God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe and that if He did exist he would have to obey the laws of physics.
Is he making his way to Vancouver? I checked his site and doesn't show any scheduled book signings in Canada.. How did you find out that he was coming to Toronto?
The old lady is very funny....
Richard is the best!
A lot of people care more about their comfort instead of caring about the truth, and that's stupid...
Ahahahah...the beginning was just right.
About the narrative imagination: its hard to answer questions live. I get confused and forget what i was about to say, but the answer to me seems easy enough. We are naturally good at remembering stories because thats how we learn what to do in the past. If we see someone get eaten by the shark we know to avoid sharks. Now we are social animals that live in tribes and tribes that would have story telling could teach other people better ergo aiding survival ergo evolution of narration
I love how she seems so unamused by her own jokes! Makes it twenty times funnier...:)
I shall. [Holy Grail medieval music plays]
@KenEdMurray Serious scientists very rarely speak in absolutes. It is more or less only the mathematicians who really can do that safely. Good science is not about saying "I am right, this evidence proves it" but rather it is saying that "I have a theory, and this evidence supports it, but you are welcome to try and disprove me, if you can". That is, of course, assuming that the person who will try to disprove the theory is equally objective and dispassionate.
Another example is we've discover that fossil fuels are dangerous only after we became dependant on them. It's difficult to replace something we're dependant on without an immediate threat (although dogma is also contributing to the lack of change). Plus the problem of coordinating with ~6.7 billion people.
did you even watch?
Great upload!! Watching.
When did ever say any of this? Are we watching the same video?
Remember you are a human biological organism so it is OK to both give and experience emotions. Dawkins has always said that he would not want to live in a purely Darwinian society.
Shall I get this book in english or the one translated to swedish? Can't decide!
I can think of one instance of selective human breeding that did have an impact on human physiology, and that was the awful North American slave trade. People were treated like farm animals and bread for size and strength, which has resulted in the incredibly powerful physiques of African Americans. I am not a scientist or have empirical proof of this idea, i'm going purely on observation and anecdote. For anyone trying to spin this comment, I am not racist and i do not condone slavery.
@keepthefunk Dawkins doesnt tell lies, HE EXPOSES THEM. Some people would just rather ignore the truth and keep their fairy tales. Religious people and their fairy tales is like a baby with its blankey
Is Dawkins wearing a 'Croca-duck' tie? He is so awesome.
love the sarah palin joke at the beginning.
So easy and bashing her just doesnt get old.
At least not yet, lol
The question is such a good one after all
I am Arthur, King of the Britains. Good sir knight, will you come with me to Camelot and join us at the round table?
It at times seems painfully clear that this one book they have not read either.
2:21 was so funny haha.
I'm looking forward to reading your new book.
Richard Dawkins is a good scientist for looking at all points of view seriously. but if a person ( or group ) repeatedly talk at the crockduck level stop listening. for the health of your brain. stop.
I forgot to say BLASPHEMERS !!! Shirt is almost shit, wheras tie is almost time, the fire in which we burn ! So it is obvious that we must follow the tie and not the shirt, anything else is just cherry picking.
The first quote is very true if you think about it.How can we get fossils of the little proteins and RNA that were the first living things derived from non organic matter? So that statement does not discredit evolution a bit.
Sorry try again Halkipalas.
Cheers!
Do you mean the joke about the running shoes,
whitejmw? I nearly fell off my chair!!
@tgdavisReally,you really would want another human to have his skin peel off ond his eyeballs pop out for all eternity in eternal agony,what a wonderful example of humanity you are,a sterling benchmark.
Stand up, people. Seriously, stand the fuck up.
I love the Crocoduck tie!
Nice Crocoduck tie... P Zed's got one too.
As far as I can tell they're a limited edition and you can't just go out and buy one... which sucks.
ok sorry I got mixed up, somewhere Dawkins said we evolved from chimps, so if it otherwise then fine.
a great youtuber sent me a PM saying we shared an ancestor of chimps, ok then, he also said that the first life was hardly intelligent, and was a single cell organism.
My question to that is who made this single cell organism?
Sorry to coming a bit too aggressive
I thought biofluorescent mice as pets would be more popular by now. I always thought a hairless cat species that was biofluorescent would pop up somewhere.
L O L @ Crockaduck tie ! Pawned!
Darwin didn't write about "survival of the fittest." That phrase is a sensationalized version of "natural selection," which is the principle on which evolution is based.
Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, and people should really stop saying that. It's an easy over-simplification that a lot of people are taught in school. In truth, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor that is neither a modern human nor a modern chimp. They evolved separately based on separate stimuli.
love his tie
He made a comment at the beginning about being back next year with something else. What did he mean by that?
I love logic.
And who are you that is so wise in the ways of science ...
cant hear u guys too well. pump up the jam.
Evolution, be it of organism or of mind, of subatomic matter or of the cosmos as a whole, reflects the pervasive role of process which is central both to the nature of our world and to the terms in which it must be understood. Change pervades nature.The passage of time leaves neither individuals nor types (species) of things statically invariant.
If the ducks were not clones or twins, you could consider them different organisms, from an information systems POV...
26:50
The number of pairwise combinations of 2 million is 4 trillion?
That would include pairs with itself (duck with duck) and double pairs (crocodile with duck and duck with crocodile).
It's more like 1999999000000 combinations.
Sorry to nitpick :)
He's wearing the crocoduck tie he wore on Colbert!
I know that we didnt evolve from chimps. I was replying to a comment and im sorry if i implyed that we evolved from chimps. I was debating someone who thought that us evolving from chimps as opposed to australepithicus aferensis was not a big difference when it comes to the presence of chimps today.
How do i meet this man?
I do not like dawkins but he has the right to his opinions and he doesnt deserve the abuse he gets from religious nuts!!!
ganteng. Not that it would make a real big dent on the magnitude of your ignorance but it would a tiny one if you at least got the name right! If you need help with that...it's in the name of this channel and also in pretty big letters at the top! Right above the video!!!
Holy crap!
He's wearing a Crockoduck tie!!!!!!
also, no accredited quality, top tier university (top 100) offers a degree in "christian science" because christian science is theology and that's offered at a religious school. get your terms correct.
Thank "god" Dawkins exists....i have an undestanding of my life better than being religious...
With The God Delusion being so popular, it is always going to be brought up... I feel a bit sorry for Dawkins. He's like an actor who's trying to break out of his long time sitcom role. People forget Dawkins is a scientist first and foremost, and 99% of his work has been on science, not religion.
Genetic engineering is very intriguing. There's a big stigmatism with it though. It'd be quite possible to create a real life super hero though (strength, bones, intelligence, vision, etc).
It's funny hearing that nice looking lady say all those mean things lol.
If you ask 'who' then you already pose the question from a theist point of view.
'How did life begin' would be a better starting point.
Im 'hopefully' going to see him in oxford soon with my top set physics GCSE group xD
I am having trouble posting a reply ! maybe this will get through look at the zazzle website search for crocoduck tie or something like that.
Your not the only one, I should a phrased it better. If you look back a couple of days you can see my actual opinion in a 6 or 7 line comment
Love the crocoduck tie
i don't doubt it. that chair looks just plain painful though
This is as close as I have heard Dawkins come to endorsing human biodiversity. The question is not should society be ruled by Darwinian competition. The question is do human differences matter. If you accept a genetic contribution to intelligence and that genes like MAOA cause violent behavior, then core liberal ideas simply will not work. Dawkins' obsession with creationists makes it seem like he is avoiding the tougher, deeper issues.
Receiving a transplant INTERspecies doesn't mean that the organ being transplanted will not reject, and last time I heard, all humans had 100% the same genetic makeup, so your contention is misleading.
Also, I would love the specifics on this 2002 study that you sited as showing a 5% difference in chimp/human genome--I'm wondering why this study's findings haven't made their way into the most current textbooks on the subject.
'LALALALAL I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALA' -
Halkipalas - UA-cam 2009