Darwin Day Questions: Is Evolution a Fact?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Richard Dawkins answers your questions about evolution in honor of Darwin Day 2015.
"...it isn’t a theory that the earth moves around the sun it’s a fact we can observe, evolution is not”
Edited by Stephanie Renee Guttormson
Copyright 2015 Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
I cannot observe yesterday, I guess it never happened, I cannot observe tomorrow, I bet it will never come.
1. nobody is saying there is no time
2. Without proof you would not be able to prove what you did yesterday, thats why you have to prove things in science and in court
3. There will be a day where tomorrow doesnt come, so its indeed not a fact
@@NjoyMoney evolution is not fact, it is based 100% on a foundation of 7 basic assumptions that have never been proven as fact and never will be..
You've already observed yesterday, and tomorrow you'll observe it in 24 hours, so that would be a proof to you? Anyways let's put your stupid analogy aside, the gentleman in the video says that observing is not always proving however you can prove something based on some clues and evidences.
The problem is, is there really some reliable scientific evidence of evolution rather than just a couple of hypothesis and guesses? Is there any proof of life came from no life?
This should be a one-second video of Dawkins looking at the camera and saying "yes"
But that would be disingenuous and incorrect.
Nice try, but the theory is flawed. You failed to mention the tides. They come in and then they go out. You can't explain that!
As far as i know, the tides are caused by the gravitational forces of the moon.
...but... but.. who put the moon there?
you cant explain that?
who put it there.....?
Lovely Destruction Hahaha. What's funny is people really think that.
marshmallow had almost convinced me I may have erred. Thanks Lovely Destruction for clearing things up
Ryan McIntyre yeah, Bill O Rielly does, he actually said that
Creationist start with the conclusion and try to make the data fit their bias.
Cosmologist, geologist and biologists etc. all work opposite to the creationist method.
Yet what is your answer to how did the big bang start? So we start at the end, and where do you start, the middle. You guys just skip over the beginning then when you start going into anything regarding the universe or whatever you have already accepted evolution as fact and the (big bang). Just sayin
We don't try, that is what your side does. Still a theory with no proof
@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes huh?
@@myname9856 What Is A Theory With No Proof?
Creation Or Evolution!?
Because I Can Assure You That Both Creation AND Evolution Have VALID PROOF!!!
@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes ok, show me proof for evolution... I'll wait
seriously, this alternating camera thing isn't working, so please stop trying. As for the rest, thumbs up as always.
It looks like they got the message the first time. I'm going to take a leap and say this was most probably shot the same day as the last one, so all they could do was try to fix it in the editing and resolve to correct their methods next time they film a batch of these.
Felix Nielsen But what will we do with these extra tripods?? :P
Felix Nielsen Just shut the fuck up about the camera you dumbfuck.
LmOver I seems clear who should do what you just proposed, so please do.
554466551 I noticed that myself - props to them for making improvements based on our criticisms :)
People not understanding what a theory is and that a theory can also be a fact has gotten old, really, really old.
I capitalize Theory in scientific context.
***** It depends on what the context is. Evolution is a fact by definition. Offspring are not clones of the parents. We call that phenomena evolution. And you're correct, the ToE is the collection of facts, evidence, and documents relating to evolution. Theories never become facts any more than an envelope becomes a letter. They are different animals.
+Anton Lindberg PAGY I meant "fact" as in the common definition of the word. People who are using the common definition of "theory", rather than the scientific definition of "theory" but don't understand how trying applying the common definition in a scientific context is wrong, don't need to be further confused by semantics. The first step to getting people to accept that evolution is a proven theory is to use common language so they can grasp the fundamentals.
Marc Norton I disagree. We need to stop dumbing down to the least common denominator. Too many people are brain lazy. Ask a few people if they're in a car going 60mph, how long will it take to go 60 miles. If they get that, ask what the decimal for half a quarter. These concepts aren't that hard. They need to learn them. That's how I feel.
Modern religion and various other scams have been very successful at dumbing down. After a person is a teenager their capacity to learn new things diminishes each year.
Do they need to learn them? Yes. Will they learn them? Probably not. So there's no crime in tailoring tour message to the person you're talking to.
Would watching bacteria mutating to overwhelm an antibiotic count as watching evolution??
You mean becoming resistant to an antibiotic? Yes, that is evolution.
***** so we can actually watch evolution in a petri dish...
*****
Yes, we can watch it in a petri dish.
The long-term e.coli Lenski experiments do just that with e. coli that started all from the same stock and were grown for tens of thousands of generations in different environments.
***** so why does almost every yotube-atheist/evolutionist tell people asking for evidence that you can't see evolution directly? A timelapse of a petridish should suffice!
*****
They're referring to the creationist's plea to witness a bigger change, like a land mammal turn into a whale. That's not an observable change because that takes far, far more than one generation to see.
If you can find a single atheist/scientist that doesn't think the Lenski experiments demonstrate evolution though, I'll eat my shoes with A1-sauce.
I can hear Ken Ham now: "Dawkins calls evolution a crime!"
shhhh don't give him any ideas!!
Sean Armstrong Oh crap!
atticstattic Ken Ham got really excited when he first read the title of this video. But he thought Dawkins was saying "Is evolution a fart?"
you right
@@GuilleMas the evolutionary lie is less valuable than a fart
"Is Evolution a Fact?"
spolier
yes
I note Pure Facts, that you include abiogenesis theories among your options here. Best not do that- it is not the same as evolution.
But all of the various "theories" you proffered are about explaining the fact of evolution.
Most are theories about specific families of flora/ fauna and are not counter theories to evolution by natural selection.
Not an impressive selection, you don't seem to have understood what you were saying.
@@ozowen5961 But what he gave he's still kinda funny 😂
What does spolier mean?
@Rawmatt We still can't fully explain gravity, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Prove it
Mr. Dawkins. I'm abit puzzled that you would say that we don't observe our earth rotate around the sun, and spin on its own axis. I believe there are multiple ways to do this without extrapolating on information about the season or night-day shiftings.
+Alex Sparta With modern space technology, yes we can go out there and watch it, but the theory was developed long before space travel....
We actually don't. Just accept it.
"Mr. Dawkins. I'm abit puzzled that you would say that we don't observe our earth rotate around the sun, and spin on its own axis." I'm puzzled that you wrote, "our earth rotate around the sun" when it orbits the sun. hehe While I'm at it, a better choice for spin would be rotate. Remember to capitalize Earth, too. lol Have a good one!
Actually, we can't observe the earth revolving around the sun. We can observe the earth's position relative to the sun, and plot the orbit of the earth around the sun, to infer that the earth revolves around the sun. However since both the earth and sun are in motion, we actually cannot see this oblique orbit of the earth around the sun. If you trace the earth's path in space, it would look like a spring pulled on either ends. The oblique orbit of the earth around the sun is relative to the position of the sun, without the sun as a point of reference, the earth doesn't exactly revolve around anything we've discovered yet actually. If it makes better sense, trace the path of the moon but remove the earth and use the sun as a point of reference and you get the moon "revolving" around the sun in an orbit of loops... which neatly matches with the analogy, as evolution occurs relative to populations, types, and species. Hope this helps
I fear that RD's lack of explanation of why we have seasons will cause more people to believe it has to do with the orbit rather than the tilt of the earth combined with the orbit. REMEMBER FOLKS, WHEN ITS WINTER IN THE NORTH, ITS SUMMER IN THE SOUTH, AND VICE VERSA
I find it distressing that you feel you have to explain that.
wow dawkins just blew my mind again. For a second, i understood what the questioner wrote in about how we can observe the earth revolving around the sun.....but after dawkins explained that we actually can NOT in fact WATCH the earth go around the sun, it makes a lot more sense to me. Never though about it that way.
actually we can lmao
@@mohamedelsayed1868not if you live on earth you can't.
@@cezar211091 thats what space telescopes/video are for. we CAN observe the earth moving by beaming images back to earth...thus we CAN while on earth. evolution is a farce.
Evolutions evidence > Detectives evidence
Another amazing video. Thank you Richard.
Well to be fair, both the evidence of evolution and the evidence of what a detective has are both high. The evidence of evolution is like when the detective finds the rapist's DNA in a pair of women's underwear, it is undeniably true that the rapist has been caught now...same thing with evolution, there is a lot of evidence for evolution.
Evidence for evolution:(this list is not exhaustive, please feel free to add anything I missed)
1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
2 Evidence from Genetics
3 Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns
4 Evidence from DNA sequencing
5 The fossil record
6 Evidence from Pseudogenes
7 Evidence from observed speciation
8 Evidence from Chromosome 2 in humans
9 Evidence from comparative anatomy
10 Nested hierarchies and classification
11 Evidence from homologous structures and divergent evolution
12 Evidence from Vestigial structures
13 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
14 Evidence from Atavisms
15 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
16 Evidence from Arthropod appendages
17 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
18 Evidence from Route of the vas deferens
19 Evidence from paleontology
20 Evidence from geographical distribution of animals
21 Evidence from Island biogeography
22 Evidence from Endemism
23 Evidence from Adaptive radiations
24 Evidence from Ring Species
25 Evidence from Migration and isolation of the animals
26 Evidence from observed natural selection in the lab and in the field
27 Evidence from Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
28 Lactose intolerance in humans
29 Evidence from Nylon-eating bacteria
30 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
31 Evidence from artificial selection
@César Rabbit Smart wabbit.
@@ultrad-rex1389 mate literally fossil records r the biggest evidence dir evilution 🙄🙄🙄
Thanks, i need this for a stand paper
Read the books of Claude Rael.
I can refute this in one second. That is your perception of the evidence. Done. Genes of animals and humans are alike yes, but your theory relies on the opinion that these commonalities must mean that they derive from the same thing.... My opinion is that they don't. until you can conclude that the bones of intermediate species ever reproduced, then it would be a fact. If you can show evidence of an intermediate species ever existing now or before then boom you have a fact. BUT BONES SHOW EVERYTHING WE ALREADY KNOW. Different species are genetically alike. I never concluded that a football was birthed through many species of pig or football pigs. Nor do I think that we came from Bananas because we have similar genetic makeup, the fact is God made us from the dust of this earth and we are going to be genetically alike other living things here. Maybe you don't believe that but imagine me telling you it is my theory but it is also a fact. Nope not gonna cut it. You have a belief and so do I . I interpret this list of so called evidence as something else. you clearly are misrepresenting facts by assimilating one interpretation from said findings.
Day and night are a facts that we are living and seeing the results of them
Unlike evelotion.
Evelotion
You can't observe a person aging but given a substantial ammount of time, change will become clear
But you have picture of his every shape evolving from child to aged person....... why not same in terms of evolution? where are those living beings who were in between animal one and animal two showing both characteristics thy there is such a big difference in between two shapes of it?
I very much respect the great deal of patience this man has shown throughout the years. He has been answering basically the same questions over and over again. And still he does.
Anyone else notice the cross microphone?
Has RD become a closet christian?
Richard Dawkins: The Earth's spinning is just a theory. *- FOX News*
😂😂😂😂😂
This made me laugh more than it should have
Theory, not hypothesis.
Where can I find that he said that?
@@keith.anthony.infinity.h FOX News!
I can't believe he has to explain this. Are people really that distrusting of science that they can't just simply realize that this isn't a metaphysical argument?
Absolutely brilliant explanation. Thank you.
The day of Richard Dawkins birth March 26, from here on out should be declared Dawkins Day.
Question: Would you consider the changes in crops, adapting to their local environment or creating larger yields etc. a type of evolution?
Since larger yields are the result of selective breeding and not natural selection, I doubt that it counts as evolution. Although it is a very very similar process.
@@songbird7450it is evolution just by artificial means.
@@songbird7450That is evolution. Is is just ‘artificial’ evolution created by humans applying strong selection pressures. Kind of like the evolution of dog breeds.
Selective breeding is nothing like evolution.
I can prove evolution very clearly in a sentence. Men and women develop from the womb, We all start with a tail; not a tale. The tail isn't present upon birth. We lose the tail because tails are more useful aquatically where we came from. Now we walk on land no need for tails; just our mind and tales of what our minds conceive.
What are you even talking about do you know anything about embryology !
Seriously needs the foundation media manager to get their act together. First interviews conducted by a guy while on his phone now this weird 2 angle shoot.
This is basic stuff but it obscures an interesting topic with rank amateur production.
Why Dawkins didn't say the fact that we can observe evolution. We can observe the natural selection in petri dishes on bacteria, viruses just as every other microorganisms and we can experiment the artifical(i mean human made) selection like choosing the best plants for seeding the field or mate the only best dogs to have better race, or only use bull which have the most meat for mating. We will observe the natural selection but it takes time and the theory itself is very new when you consider the living things evolving for billions of years. (im not native speaker so dont mind the grammar mistakes.
If evolution is a fact then I would like to know the answer to the following question: how does the theory of evolution explains the problem of arrival to the 'selectability state'? Selectability state in the evolution of some biological system or structure is such an arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA which contains information for functional system or structure that offers a selectable benefit to an organism. If something offers selectable benefit then, of course, it will be SELECTED. But, before SELECTION happens, we have one huge problem. What we observe in biology is structural intradependence and this intradependence predetermines necessity for a specific DNA information. Meaning, it is NOT the environment of an organism which predetermines DNA information that will be selected, but an already existing DNA information that codes for an already existing structure or a system. Examples:
a) intron-exon gene structure predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to rearrange the nascent pre-messenger RNA transcript in which introns are removed and exons are joined together. This information codes for 'rna splicing machinery'.
b) structure of egg cell predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to initiate the development of a new individual organism. This information codes for a specific 3D arrangement of molecules that is called - a sperm cell.
c) heart structure predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to produce structure with the ability to prevent the back flow of blood from the ventricle to the atrium when blood is pumped out of the ventricle. This information codes for structure that is called - a heart valve.
When DNA information for these structures exists, then of course - it will be SELECTED. But how would you find this predetermined information via random nucleotide rearrangement process(mutations), if only 1,000 nucleotides can be arranged into 10^602 combinations. Let us for e.g. consider the information needed to build a human heart.
If we assume that only 8.2 percent of human DNA is functional(1), and given the ratio between the heart-weight and body-weight in humans, there is approximately 1,230,000 nucleotides representing the information to build a human heart. This nucleotides can be arranged into 10^740,000 possible combinations.
Given the Reidhaar-Olson&Sauer ratio of protein functionality, where for a protein 92 AA long, with 10^122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10^63 functional sequence, that means that only 1 in every 10^382,000 combination contains information for a functional human heart.
Using fast mutation rates, total number of organisms that have ever lived on Earth, length of genomes and so forth... published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations at 10^50. Now, even if there were 10^50 selection steps(small improvements) in evolution, even if every selection step were advantageous to an organism and even if all mutational resources were spent on search for functional heart, the probability to find the information to build a human heart is 10^381,950. This is like winning the lottery jackpot 54,560 times in a row. Now, we now that in everyday life, if a person believes that it is possible to win the jackpot 'only' 10 times in a row, this person would be called crazy. So, by what process did evolution arrived to the selectability state and find functional information in the space of 10^382,000 combinations with only 10^50 resources available?
(1)www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-only-8-2-human-dna-functional-02083.html
The argument has a fundamentally flawed assumption that the human heart, in it's exact genetic form, is the only possible biological solution to the problem of providing oxygen necessary for metabolism. If you start with the first organisms and assume a forgone conclusion that the exact human genome will arise in exactly a certain amount of time, the odds are staggeringly low for an exact match to reality, obviously. Here we are though, obviously.
Just think about any individual in existence. There are 0.5*2^50,000 number of gene combinations from any two humans (parents). Now think about how many human generations have existed just to produce you. Its like you won the lottery millions of times in a row.
A you really serious with this answer? First, my argument has nothing to do with number of possible biological solutions to the problem of providing oxygen necessary for metabolism, but with the ratio of nucleotide combinations which contains information for a given biological solution to all possible nucleotide combinations. Second, you don't understand basic probability. If two individuals produce offspring it is necessary to get offspring with some gene combination. This is called - necessity and it has nothing to do with probability. For example: If you roll a dice 100 times it is necessary to get some numbers. Probability is the measure of the likeliness of rolling 100 specific numbers that you selected before rolling. Likewise, probability of offspring with gene combination xyz is the measure of the likeliness of producing an offspring with gene combination xyz that is selected BEFORE this offspring is born.
So this argument of yours is pure circular reasoning. It presupposes that probability is not problem for evolution because we observe biological solutions, functional biological systems or because we observe various biological solutions for similar ecological niches.
Your argument is like situation in which one person wins the same lottery with the same numbers 100 times in a row and then, after this pearson and lottery organisers are suspected of manipulating a lottery, they defend themselves by saying: this is not a problem, because some numbers must come up. This is of course nonsensical. You cannot mix necessity with probability.
You can lead a horse to water...
We don't know yet. Scientist only know that gene changes over time by mutation(or something else) and that is evolution.Your question is about origin of DNA. And no, DNA does change by external factors, try to radiate gene by X-rays.
If you asked this..
Unfortunately, the editing is still distracting. I'm a video editor and I can't help noticing that the lip sync is a few frames out.
To flip a theory to a fact is an overstatement . Interpretation makes theories ,observation makes facts . There can be infinite different Interpretations but there can be only one fact to be observed at a time and a place.
This video would have been so much better had there been another camera angle each time Mr Dawkins looked in another direction, maybe even have the other camera with a much brighter hue so the colors were more vivid, then back to the other camera with a more realistic natural color, and so on and so forth.
I’m a fan of Dawkins, but why is he saying we don’t have direct evidence of the earth spinning? We have visual evidence from satellites
Not the entirety of it though. No one watches the entire one year cycle in real time, yet we know it happens.
@@GC-yw1mn Well because we don't need to! Why would you try to prove the existence of a spoon that is already there? Unless if you're a schizophrenic with a sense of philosophy.
The answer is YES.
The problem is in the conflation of the term hypothesis with that of theory, plain and simple.
I don't like how he said "happened a long time ago". I know that Richard Dawkins is obviously aware that Evolution isn't something that "happened" at one point in time, in the past, that it's a gradual, constant process which was and is happening, slowly, but there's bound to be people who would misunderstand what he said and people who would abuse that quote.
Well, there are plenty of aspects of evolution that happened a long time ago. Man evolved a long time ago. Tiktaalik had developed many of the traits of modern tetrapods and began scoping out areas of the shoreline for his descendants to build condominium complexes on a long time ago. Some dinosaurs grew feathers and developed other features and evolved to the point that we now call them birds a long time ago. I believe this is what he was referring to... historical evolution (so to speak). Yes, it's true that evolution is still and will always happen as long as life exists. Evolution will continue in the future, is happening now, and indeed happened a long time ago.
How can you abuse that quote when he has already written many books on the subject?
ESJ Chcgo You're giving people too much credit.
You don't understand my comment. I'm just saying their argument would be invalid.
ESJ Chcgo You don't say? Obviously, their argument would be invalid, I thought that was clear.
Evolution is a very big mystery. It happened so long ago. You would have to actually be there to see it happen to clearly say that is a fact.
@@oneiroagent we can observe macroevolution happening?? Are you drunk or just believe whatever your boyfriend Dawkins tells you
You don't know what you're talking about !
Facts annoy creationists and conservatives in general.
If it's such a well-known fact, show me one evidence for it.
Transitioning fossils.
Pope Dawkins show me the best example
Pope Dawkins not by any stretch of the imagination. creation.mobi/greater-than-98-chimp-human-dna-similarity-not-any-more
Alex Repented necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html
The camera angle change thing is awkward as hell. I know, it doesn't affect the message, but, by being distracting, it does engage a part of my mind/brain I'd rather dedicate to what you're actually saying.
The first camera seems to have better color and a better angle. Theres simply no reason to have two cameras when hes just sitting and talking in one place. It distracts from what hes actually saying and loses a bit of your thought process. I vote like everyone else to stick with that first camera. I'm not sure why anyone thought it'd be a good idea to alternate, honestly.
A hypothesis is still a hypothesis
And in Science, a theory is sth very solid !
Notice how he talks about the detective deducing who the murderer is by looking at evidence of the aftermath like fingerprints, but he doesn't think that when looking at the universe, it's like if the detective said the crime was committed by no one.
That’s what the evidence says. The evidence doesn’t point to anyone doing it. Follow the evidence.
i would have thought the observation of a mutating / evolving virus was proof beyond reasonable doubt of evolution.
then again, peering into the microscopic can be an arduous task for normal people who don't have immediate access to it
i also like to assume energy is a form of evolution, considering overtime it can change, degrade and ultimately cease to be energetic. the reaction to heat is a good example, boiling a kettle changes the structure and makes it hotter, it evolves to transfer heat.... i know, i'm being a little silly, but you understand the changes are that of observation and can be determined with a working knowledge of heat transfer.
like the detective analogy, we can see little footprints showing it used to be hot, or it used to be hotter at least.
Thank you Dawkins 🖒🖒🖒🖒❤
Great video BUT one flaw: None of the scientist had actual observation of evolution taking place. All is based on hypothesis which is NOT objective science but subjective science.
COVID VIRUS AND ALL ITS VARIANTS DISPROVES YOUR IDIOTIC STATEMENT 😂👍
Evolution is observed in our genetics and the fossil record
FAIL
@@captaingaza2389 Great response BUT NO human has OBSERVED any transformation of one kind of species to ANOTHER kind of species! You still missed the answer. However you are beating around the bush!
@@thaddeusramos3543
It is clear you have no clue what observation means in science
Maybe try reading more than one book
@@captaingaza2389 It is YOU who is in denial ! Now go watch the movie, The Incredible Hulk! It shows the power of Darwin Evolution finally hitting Hollywood!
Evolution or to put ot correctly The theory of Evolution is just that a theory. Unlike the earth going round the sun we can observe it. Perhaps a good question for Mr. Dawkins to consider is when did Evolution stop? Is there not some evidence of it in process today?
In Science, the word theory has a very specific meaning, different than the everyday use.
A theory is evidence-based, well-documented, peer-reviewed, ...
It's not a hypothesis !
Yes, Evolution is still in progress (why should it stop?) but don't forget that the average human lifespan is usually too short to notice that in most cases. That's why fruit flies (which are very short-lived) are often used in experiments, or mice and rats... But that's far too complex to explain that in a comment !
Just one example of recent human evolution: people live longer and get taller (on average).
Evolution is a FACT and it is the mechanism which is theory.
Could there possibly be a "end product" of evolution, a species that is perfectly adapted to its environment? If that is the case, would every species evolve to be exactly like that one species? Would there be just one species in the end because to be like it would have the biggest advantage?
No evolution is always happening. But you can look up "stabilizing selection" one of the three types of selection where the environment doesnt change for a long time and the "extremes" go extinct
*So nobody ever saw the earth spinning or revolving around the sun, damn why i had to believe all the astronomers*
Ben G Because direct observation is not the only form of evidence?
Ben G How could the Earth revolve round the Earth?
Martin Pearson wanted to say sun...
Ben G
The Earth spins on its own axis, badass.
I really hope Richard Dawkins stays alive along enough to witness his beloved theory of evolution blow up.
Well Jeff
At least you’re still alive to know you’re wrong
Maybe try reading more than one book
@@JulioPerez.234
You’ve made no sense In Your comment
What explosion are you referring to?
@@JulioPerez.234
If you’re going to discuss science, it’s best you learn and understand the terms correctly.
Nobody says an explosion created anything, only misinformed or clueless people use these terms.
Complexity has arisen since the Big Bang, this has been observed
@@JulioPerez.234
Why do you keep using the word explosion??? You’re the only one here arguing about explosions, stop straw-manning
The Big Bang was an expansion of space, no explosions anywhere
It seems you need a bigger vocabulary
@@JulioPerez.234
Here’s some advice you desperately need
Science is not done on Nat Geo, the scientist is using easy terms in order to express ideas that are hard to grasp, especially for dimwits like yourself who then take what they say literally instead of investigating further
Instead of trying hopelessly to shoot down established science to defend your nonsense why don’t you provide evidence to support your assertions
I think the “only a theory” argument is so popular because of the unfortunate disparity between the common definition of “theory” in American pop culture, and the working definition of the word in science.
Is it deliberate not to distinguish between macro and micro?
probably, since it's the same process, and only the religious harp on it
@@AMC2283 That's not so. Michael Behe is a prominent US scientist who says that Macro is distinct, and no scientist in the world has ever shown how macro could work unguided. Read 'Darwin's Black Box'. He argues that scientists simply believe that in the same way that religious people believe in God without being able to prove it. In other words, scientists take the same leap of faith here that religious people have to make. Unguided macro-evolution is not a fact; scientists believe in it. Micro-evolution is a fact e.g. we can prove that adults are now a few inches taller globally and 60 years ago.
@@JLaw954 behe’s an idiot, irreducible complexity isn’t a thing, evolution isn’t an assembly process. He couldn’t debunk a bed.
@@JLaw954don’t understand evolutionary science huh?
So then, what is your alternative to explain the diversity of life on Earth?
@@rickdelatour5355 You didn't answer the question. Naturalism cannot explain the origins of the universe. I understand that much.
I'm a bit of a dunce at this science malarky but can't the planet moving round the sun and spinning be observed by space cameras or by being in a space capsule or space station perhaps eating some space food or playing space cards?
I know that there is evidence for microevolution (adaptation within species), such as finch beaks, but what is the scientific evidence for macroevolution (evolution from one life form to a completely different kind of life form)?
That is not what "macroevolution" is. Macroevolution is the variation of a population that results in a new species, even if that new species closely resembles the parent species.
That’s speciation not macro evolution
@@epicchocolate1866 Creatard, "MacroEvolution" is the change in a population that results in a new species. Yes, that is speciation. Same thing.
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
University of Berkeley
@@walkergarya I think macroevolution would best be described as large-scale innovation. Instead of variations in color or shape, which can be expressions of existing genetic information, macroevolution would have to result in large-scale changes necessary to form new organs or new bodies. This would require new genetic information. I don't believe that small-scale microevolutionary changes that have been observed can be extrapolated to explain large-scale macroevolutionary innovation, which has never been observed.
@@jollyrancher521 No, you do not get to redefine scientific terms. Micro-evolution is the variation within a breeding, ie species population. Macro-evolution is the variation beyond a species level, ie, speciation.
There are tens of thousands of mammal species. Very few of them have unique organs, they all have variations on the standard set.
We observe many examples of "new genetic information". We have examples of this that we can trace back millions of years.
We do observe that earth is spinning , what do you think satellites are meant for ?
when people say theory like its bad. its not. but it means to be a theory you have gotten the 5 stars,the medel that says I'm a really smart and possible reality that science can't disprove so far.
The microphone under the sweater at first looked like a cross. That was scary.
It's not a question of whether evolution is a fact, but whether your 'detective interpretation' leads to the proper conviction... I asked a prospective professor of Anthropology, whether, dinosaurs-on-Mars is compatible with anthropology; He said, No... yet a "fact" is a fact: his interpretation, then-contemporary anthropology, was wrong; So, let's ask, Is Anthropology, consistent with Evolution...(?!)
I really hope that one day they will make a video better explaining the singularity, particularly if there was no space around it how could it exist. Most of the big bang makes perfect sense but it seems with the singularity the more I struggle to understand it the faster it escapes me. If there is someone who is well versed in physics could shed some light on this it would be very much appreciated.
Terrific explanation. But please get yourself a better videographer. That first shot is lovely (if over lit). But that second angle is an abomination, and doesn’t match the first at all!!! If you can’t do two angles well, stick with one.
I understand micro evolution, but I don't understand how by looking at fossil records proves that macro evolution happened. We can observe micro, it's pretty obvious that that happens but to say that we evolved from bacteria millions or billions of years ago seems like a little stretch. To me at least.
Your donation page is broken. Nothing happens when I try to donate via paypal. I will check back later and try again
I always point people to the e coli long term evolution experiments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
I am absolutely not a Richard Dawkins supporter and am an ardent creationist but Richard does make perfect sense here. The observations and the inferences are really not in question here. It is merely the conclusions arrived at. My conclusion differs than his and I hope my is as based upon science (of which I am a follower) and logic. My conclusions may not be consistent with his or other evolutionists but remember they are based upon broken chains and inference much like Richard's are.
isnt the changing seasons more to do with the angle of the earth?
Remember who it was that vigorously opposed the idea that the earth moves around the sun! Nothing ever changes!
Isn't it fun when the creationists say, "That's not evolution, that's just a minor change" ?
So is it a fact or not? And by what definition of the word?
Maybe look up how ''fact'' and ''theory'' are defined and you would understand that your question makes no sense.
By the scientific definition. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. All you have to do is take a sample size one generation and compare it to a sample size of the next. That is an observed fact that say the allele frequencies for blue eye increase while brown eyes decrease or something like that. It's a quantifiable measure of changing alleles. That is evolution. That is a fact.
The idea of the theory is why this happens. Why do these allele frequencies for eye color, skin color, muscle mass, intelligence, etc all change over time. The theory of natural selection explains everything we see. It makes predictions about evolution that have been verified to be correct.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Stickyxgo Of course the question 'makes sense', it's the very question asked in the video title. Explain to me why the question doesn't make sense.
***** Thank you.
DylanDesign
No problem.
They say there is no such thing as a stupid question, but I think this proves otherwise. Seriously? This is the best question you could find to have Dawkins answer for Darwin Day?
Calvin Smith I think Dawkins is focusing on questions asked by creationists, so they are all stupid questions.
Calvin Smith Probably, who said "there is no such thing as a stupid question" had never heard of evolution deniers...
Wrong. We can in fact image the sun however this is probably not the best way to keep track of the earth's obit, instead watching the change of constellations is a better way to observe this. However the earth orbits the sun relative to the sun is correct. It is also correct to say the sun orbits the earth relative to the earth. This is observable. We do see variance in population of species over time which suggests possibly an evolutionary mechanism, however not one observed example of speciation, sub species sure, however take cats for example all populations have 38 chromosomes. Sothere is no concrete evidence for speciation which is central to evolutionary theory. I'm not saying evolution isn't happening but it's certainly not proven by science as the only mechanism. As it is not proven it holds equal footing with creation sciences and alien interference, not in terms of likleyhood perhaps but in current proveability to scientific standard. In other words it's anyone's best guess based on whatever info is available to them. You can neither prove nor disprove evolution hence it remains a theory for the time being!
Word 'theory' in the way you use it is a very different concept that a scientific theory.
"You can't observe a fish come out of water and become a land animal", I have seen it, a mudskipper.
Tadpoles to frogs?
The overall concept of evolution is a scientific fact, but many details about evolution are scientific theories, scientific hypotheses, and failed scientific hypotheses which have been substantially disproved by science as science keeps increasing its underlying human civilization wide base of knowledge.
Dude Richard Dawkins wasn't a jerk and answered the question quite well
PERFECT!!!
What are those evidences that most of them are just assumption and based of scientific ignorance
Short answer: YES!
Long Answer, Yes; if you are committing the equivocation fallacy of evolution with Natural Selection.
No; if you mean Abiogenesis or chemicals to Chemists evolution,
@@hwd71 Because there is no such thing as magic.
@@fraser_mr2009 What do you mean by magic?
How come so many well known atheists are magicians like Penn Jillette , Matt "I have a Husband but Im not Gay" Dilahunty, and Derren Brown?
Is it because molecules to man, frog to Prince evolution is a fairytale?
Hello
I'm very confused. Why don't Biologists simply point at Bacteria as a proof of Evolution? We CAN observe them evolving to adapt to new environments like our immune system. That's why we're having problems with more and more anitbiotic-resistant bacteria. Single-cell organisms change waay faster than complex beings like plants or animals...But maybe that just makes sense for people who already know that it is in fact a fact.
To my knowledge there is also a camp distinguishing between micro and macro evolution
There has to be a hell if I can stumble over this video
Camera angles..please just one.
Richard, you need to comb your eyebrows! You have a strand that went over your eye that was really distracting me! Otherwise, this was a very good video XD
I thought the microphone was a black cross for a second.....
Mr. Dawkins, could you put legends in english on your next videos, please?
A matter of great importance, especially when talking to creationists, good question.
Have you heard of NASA?
This argument doesn't make any sense because we don't just observe day and night cycles to form the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun. We have satellites and measuring instruments to prove that the earth revolves around the sun.
I think what the OP meant was that, given that we are now able to venture into space and have sent spacecraft all the way to the outer limits of our solar system, the heliocentric model is clearly observable.
Where they go wrong is when they say that evolution cannot be observed in the same manner. It can, it's happening right now all over the globe. Given the short time we have at our disposal, those are small changes, but they are there nonetheless.
Now, can we say for certain that it also happened in the past? Well, not really since we cannot say anything with such certainty about the past. We can't even say that the earth always orbited the sun. However, it's very likely that it did. Check "Last Thursdayism" for similar theories about the past that are unfalsifiable but still highly unlikely.
We observe all of the building blocks of evolution: mutation, natural selection, etc, the greater effects of that are a natural extrapilation of these principals. To suggest there is some line, some mechinism that would prevent these minor changes from accumulating into drastic changes over millions of years is at this point a claim that neccesitates "burden of proof". For example if we determine that 2 + 2 + 2 +... and so on is going to be an even number no matter how many times you count another 2, and everyone agrees this is true for all numbers we have observered but someone then wants to claim that this not true if you coninute it long enough eventual adding 2 will get an odd value that person would require evidence that doesn't exist and would not have a point that is acknowledged.
It sounds obsered I know. In the same way to say that mutations occur, natural and artificial selection can effect genes that are passed to next generations, this happens in all cases we can observe but if you accummulate these effects long enough suddenly these changes must be arbitrarily restricted within "kinds".
To the whole micro- vs. macroevolution thing: Why is it for some people so hard to grasp, that if 1+1=2, 1+1+1+...+1 = 1 000 000?
Then why it stopped?
it's isn't, evolution never stops, it's always happening
@@amitabhmihapatra8012 It goes different direction.
The statement is manipulative, in that it leaves unspoken whether "evolution is not" is meant to apply to part of the statement ("we can observe") or all of it (including "its a fact"). That's just dishonest - but nothing we're not used to seeing, eh?
You can't see the making of living organisms. You can see the change of seasons.
Daleri Rileda Yes, we can see "the making of living organisms", i.e. reproduction.
Isnt this dude like over 70 or something ? Still sharp as a Razor
There is observable proof of evolution. The Australian Cane Toad.
The Facts: in science are viewing (By observation)
so it is a fact .
The Theories: in science is the interpretation of viewing (By observation)
creating hypotheses (theories) are rebuttable Because It can be tested by the scientific method and experimental observation ..!
AND Theories are different in the scientific language from Facts .
Evolution is a theory not a fact
I DON'T KNOW if you understand English ..!
LOL
There are 2 definitions for theory in the Oxford English Dictionary I suggest you look it up. Gravity is an observable theory. Many call fact because it doesn't effect their religious beliefs. There is just as much evidence for evolution however people ignore the evidence and choose to not become educated on the matter due to their own dogmas. I wouldn't expect you to explain calculus to me if you've never taken the class.
Cant we observe the earth's rotation from space?
NASA, huh
I smell pure gravy 🤥🤥🤥
It’s your brain leaking.
Very good video, Professor Dawkins :-)
Is there any theory that doesnt based on facts?
"Evolution is an unsubstatiated conjecture about the past." Jason Lisle
Jason Lisle is a fraud with no crediblility.
th-cam.com/video/TMRCLpKCXIk/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=GutsickGibbon
He is not wrong.
@@walkergarya He is not wrong on evolution. Specifically what did he say that you think is wrong about evolution?
@@rl7012 Jason Lisle is a fraud. He uses his science education to spew technobabble pseudoscience to gullible creationist to confirm their bias.
To me there is a difference between Law and A Theory is it not? Laws are facts put together and proven true, by the way they Work ! On the other hand Theory is
Just what one believes to be true,a may be ,Theoriesing ,later may be proven wrong!
Richard Dawkins thank you so much sir you have have helped humanity in all possible ways to grow and develop,this work is indeed a great.
Dogs are a form of evolution. They were all wolves before we started breeding them as pets. It's natural selection sped up by are control of which one gets to breed. In nature a runt would not breed but we allowed them to which started the toy breeds and so on.
Mike Bryant Now, the creationists dont deny those changes within dogs, or within fish, or vegetables, or even within bacteria. Their position is simply that the evidence doesn't show us that a dog came from a non-dog, or a fish came from a non-fish, or a human from a non-human. The evolution supporters take a bigger leap of faith than their opponents, when speculating that all life comes from a common ancestor that itself came from a supposedly simple, single-celled organism which came from non-living material. That type of thinking should be taught in private schools for those who want to pay to hear it, not hoisted upon the entire population as if it was science.
Ayinde Bridges
LMAO! The common intellectual dishonesty of *moving the goalposts*!
Wolf=>dog is *already* dog from non-dog...which you both accept and reject at the same time.
But in order to avoid acknowledging evolution with this, creationists put their unscientific term »kind« to the taxon today's dogs and wolves share (family) in order to claim they're still of the same »kind« so that they then can claim that only a »change within kind« took place.
In other words: creationists put their »kind« wherever they like it to be in order to never ever be forced to accept evolution.
Your »even within bacteria« is proof of this behaviour, because _bacteria_ is one of the three domains of the tree of life (we humans are eukaryota). So, e.g. demanding from Lenski's e.coli-bacteria to become anything else than bacteria, is nonsense, because it's equal to demanding from us humans to become anything else than eukaryota.
_"the evidence doesn't show us that a dog came from a non-dog, or a fish came from a non-fish, or a human from a non-human."_
What creationists demand from evolution with this, isn't something that would prove evolution, but refute.
A wolf doesn't literally give birth to a dog in that sense (it took many generations). On the one hand, creationists seem to undestand how evolution works when it comes to the wolf=>dog example, but as soon as it is about other species, they suddenly forget it. They suddenly demand from e.g. a cat to give birth to a dog and something like this.
_"The evolution supporters take a bigger leap of faith than their opponents,"_
Because science is more complex and difficult to understand than your intellectual lazy »god did it« to literally everything.
_"when speculating that all life comes from a common ancestor"_
You already accept it. Dogs' ancestors are wolves. You merely arbitrarily interrupted the chain
_"which came from non-living material"_
Every atom is non-living, because life is an emergent property of atoms/matter.