The Eye of Nature: A Conversation with Richard Dawkins (Episode
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ธ.ค. 2024
- Sam Harris speaks with Richard Dawkins about his new book “The Genetic Book of the Dead”, the genome as a palimpsest, what scientists of the future may do with genetic information, genotypes and phenotypes, embryology and epigenetics, why the Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics couldn't be true, how environmental selection pressure works, why evolution is hard to think about, human dependence on material culture, the future of genetic enhancement of human beings, viral DNA, symbiotic bacteria, AI and the future of scholarship, resurrecting extinct species, the problem of free speech in the UK, the problem of political Islam and antisemitism in the UK, reflections on Dan Dennett, and other topics.
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a best-selling author. He is celebrated globally for his unwavering critique of religion and his commitment to critical thinking. His books include “The Ancestor’s Tale,” “The Selfish Gene,” “The Blind Watchmaker,” “Climbing Mount Improbable,” “Unweaving the Rainbow,” “A Devil’s Chaplain,” “The God Delusion,” “The Greatest Show on Earth,” “The Magic of Reality,” his two-part autobiography “An Appetite for Wonder” and “Brief Candle in the Dark,” and “Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide.” His final book tour, “An Evening with Richard Dawkins,” is currently underway.
Website: richarddawkinstour.com
Twitter: @RichardDawkins
September 6, 2024
SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/... OR become a channel member to access episodes on TH-cam. For those who can't afford the full subscription price, we offer full and partial scholarships www.samharris....
Subscribe to the YT channel: www.youtube.com...
Follow Making Sense on Twitter: / makingsensehq
Follow Sam on Facebook: / samharrisorg
Follow Sam on Instagram: / samharrisorg
For more information about Sam Harris: www.samharris.org
Sam is way better at interviewing Dawkins then some of the other people ive heard lately
You didn't want Dawkins defining what a woman was for 90% of it? Weird...
Was it triggernometry? I mean, I like the guys, but Francis just didn't meet the standards they seemed to want to achieve for interviewing Dawkins.
I couldn’t imagine spending 250k for a useless education from these morons.
Sam and Dawkins have absolutely no principles at all. Such gross grifters. At the same time Sam is pushing Buddhist meditation (and his great journey) and Richard is praising Christian values. If you offered them a buck they’d say anything you want.
Bc they’re both frauds
Love the respect and admiration Sam has for Richard Dawkins. And has always had. Real knows real
3 I 64
"real knows real" 🤣
@@pupujinki4132 quiet pupu
Im a simple man. When I see Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, I click instantly.
Then you are not a simple man :)
Yes you’re simple, to think these idiots are intellectuals, is quite the shortcoming.
💯
@@jps0117 You are expanding your knowledge of the world and intricate topics. As we get older, we should keep training our brain.
Love listening to these two guys. I can't afford the patreon stuff, but I do appreciate everything I can get. I'm 78 and unable to read now, so I'm grateful for podcasts. Thank you, what a time to be alive - at the same time as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins!
You can get all full length episodes for free by simply entering your email and requesting it on the website.
your username makes me think you're not 78. and starting with "love" rather than "i love". but whatever the case, you do you
I live in Georgia, stupidly religious part of the USA, so two 2 horsemen in my ears is very welcome
Richard Dawkins - no more words needed!
Oh lord
except idiot
Literally, man is a living legend
@@Nonesovile96 please elaborate what's "New Atheism" and how it's failed. The number of those infected with the religious delusion is on a constant decline. Even in islamic countries.
@@vykintasmorkvenas6839 Doesn't matter whether it's popular or not, Christianity is true and God is real. You really think that people only become non-religious because they have intellectually discerned the truth OR because it lets them embrace their lusts, embrace Western culture, and not have any moral accountability?
I love these guys!
Three cheers for Daniel Dennett and old Hitchens 🙌🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Now let’s have a sherry, after all it’s almost lunchtime 😂
Well my Friday night just got epic
I've got to head out and do some drinking. But I'm going to watch this later, and your comment caught my attention.. I'm trying to figure out how to ask this question.. like.. what is remarkable about Richard Dawkins? Don't know how to say that in a way that doesn't sound disrespectful. That's not what I mean, I'm assuming I'm missing something A lot of thinkers, not just Dennis noble, but a lot of others, I'm making arguments that we've been having too much blind faith in conventional darwinian dogma. I guess I always just assumed Richard Dawkins was famous because of the validation people felt from seeing him make fun of traditional religions.
@@noahghost4476you already been drinking noah?
@@RealChrisHatchI'm really not trying to disrespect your dude, chris. And I know he made a huge contribution in the sense that he changed the way people think, but he reduced it to be all about jeans. Jeans. Genes! Ffs. And then epigenetics came along and threw a wrench in the works. And now Michael Levin is doing some work that kind of makes me want to see him in a conversation with dawkins, has that happened by the way? I bet those guys disagree. Levin and dawkins, I mean. Why am I communicating as if I have been drinking already? My genes have been drinking. Now it looks like I pissed myself. See what I did there.
@@noahghost4476pre drinks?
Dawkins has bought in2 TERF'y & misogynistic rhetoric, while managing to damper his antitheism extremism by admitting he's a "cultural xian" (xian culture is @ least better than others) yet still successfully shifting the cultural Overton Window pro religious skepticism in the process
Dawkins, while showing his age a bit & far from perfect, is just 1 of those few voices standing up for science & reason over disinfo & heterodoxy excess
Levin may b this generation's Dawkins
It's unfortunate i cannot afford to travel to meet these 2 great men. It would be enlightening to be in the same room as them and listen to them have a conversation. Great Thinkers of our time.
You miss nothing inshallah you will find the true way
literally what do these guys contribute to society in any way
@@johnathanl8396 There's more to life and society than possessions.
@@alibabaschultz352 That's literally the opposite of what they believe. They are both materialists, which means that there is nothing beyond physical matter which is why they are atheists. Their whole purpose is to spread the gospel of life being nothing but atoms and matter and that God isn't real. God is real and Christ calls them to repent and believe the Gospel of truth.
@johnathanl8396 spreading evolutionary biology and public understanding of science , critical thinking , concepts and techniques about meditation (sh), fighting religions & other ideologies+ superstitions. Their books documentaries and conferences changed many lives and built up many knowledge.
(Also, imo they're great examples of clarity of mind and good choice of words, even in speaking).
You should know them really
Imagine you have a pile of sand. Remove one grain of sand every 1000 years. At any one moment a human may see a pile of sand but eventually a human will see nothing. Ask any one human what was the size and they may say something different if gap is long enough or the same if short enough. That is evolution. Small chnages over lots of time. Its happening but you probably wont notice.
Whats the difference between evolution and change? Why would evolution alienating growth,birth,sex and experience of individuals? There's too many flows in evolution and cannot even replicate life. I don't truly understand the justification of a flawed theory but I understand it no one's perfect and easy to accept just like that.
The analogy I like to use is a digital photo, and you could even imagine a picture of an animal. Change 1 pixel. Did the picture change? Eventually, you can arrive at any picture imaginable by changing 1 pixel at a time. It may be hard to notice, and the end photo might even look very similar, but evolution is simply the process.
@@Mobius_ll it was made not natural and that was simple
@@Mobius_ll process is part of animal digestive system.
To what I mean " made" it is already there and done. Pixel 1 or 2 nothing change really, it just become clearer image. If you were talking about quality and the accuracy of the invention it becomes high quality image but it doesn't move at all. I'm analysing now the illusion if it was real or not and not to stop on in an unfinished product that is being made. One thing is sure I don't hate evolution it was like I'm living in a fairy tale. Tamborine a girl who was born on flower and the same to thinker bell.
These two have made an indelible mark on 21st century culture.
Literally name TWO positive marks on 21st century culture these two have made.
@@johnathanl8396 I never said they were good marks
The subscription model of podcasting for Sam Harris. Along with advocating meditation separate from spirituality. And introducing a slew of influential podcast guests to a an otherwise unaware group of listeners. I've read countless influential books based on Sams guests. Which is purely anecdotal. I'm aware.
Contributions to founding the Clergy project for Richard Dawkins. His book " The Selfish Gene" According to a retrospective, published in Nature in 2016 still represents the dominant theory today. Dawkins was originally a zoologist, studying how animals make choices. His paper "A threshold model of choice behaviour" has been cited about three dozen times; a respectable number for a minor paper.
Just a few of the many contributions of these men.
@@bigol7169 Did you mean you could eat them?
Thank you. This is Xmas for me. I read the selfish gene as a college student and it changed my life and thinking. ❤😊
I've always wanted to meet Harris and Dawkins and have a chat with them about atheism, morality and politics. I'm a huge fan of them both. I'm an atheist of empathy myself.
An atheist of morality??
If I met them I imagine I would have very little time so after 10 seconds of thanking them (condensing 2x2 decades of gratitude...) I'd probably try to move onto something we disagree on, or something that I feel they left out from their view or so.
Sam has zero empathy, can’t you see the narcissistic drives???
@@HonestTherapist another telepath, eh? 😏
Last 2 horsemen of apocalypse!
I often go back to those videos! Doesn’t get old for me!
Back when Mr. Harris' reasoning faculties were still intact.
@@twntwrs please criticize Sam with tact.
No I shall be joining them. ❤
Thank goodness she was unable to make the original one
16:43 "Nature is daily and hourly scrutinizing every detail."
I miss Christopher Hitchens
The last two of the legendary four horsemen. They need to be protected. ❤
Is Dennett dead?
@@Marie-ClaudeBlais-j6p Yes.. he died a few months ago.
I am a dairy farmer and it is incredible how much better our cattle have gotten in large part through selective genetics in the last 40 or 50 years especially the same with crops like corn
Scary but very cool
True that! We all know Richard.
2 of the best! 😃
what do these guys contribute to society in any way?
@@johnathanl8396 And why are you asking this question?
@@curious_thinker It's a genuine question. Please outline what Dawkins and Harris contribute to society
THE TWO REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE 4 HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE .
Dawkins says he wants Christian culture without the Christianity part and Harris has advocated for restricting free speech to prevent Donald Trump from being elected lmao. These guys are clowns.
I wish I could afford this. I'm a fan of those who speak what I'm thinking better than I could.
The subscription is free
Sounds like you’re already good at parroting the mainstream narratives.
@@HonestTherapist
Sounds like you haven't checked out Graham's Hierarchy of Argument yet (half joking; I know I only told you about it a minute ago).
@@HonestTherapist I’m unclear why my comment caused you to be unkind.
@@Yossarianhoenikker Not all of the material is free. This is just one part of the dialogue.
Two of the most humane people alive today
@@lovetownsend especially Harris justifying extermination of thousands of children with 2000 pound bombs.
Ever since humans learned how to record and document their history, the atrocities committed and the depravity that has been revealed are gruesome and horrific. Progress towards morality, peace, fairness and kindness has been made over the centuries but the tendencies to discriminate, abuse, attack and take advantage of others that look different or are a little more primitive or have different beliefs is still prevalent among us.
Breeding humans by artificial selection also known as eugenics could probably be used in benevolent ways to help humans progress into the future but, knowing what humans are capable of doing, why would anyone think that some type of organization, group or authority deciding how to breed humans is good and moral is beyond me. I think this would be a recipe for disaster.
Sam asks the question what is preventing humans from using artificial selection to breed humans? If humans are committed in doing something there is really not much that can be done to prevent them from doing it. Nothing prevented humans from developing weapons that can destroy most of the life on this planet so it is unlikely that anything will be able to prevent humans from using artificial selection to breed humans.
Basically the first yap of ricky D is the same thing as i said was the best version of directed selection. Yeah that epigenetic change would not last forever it would wash out unless they were maintained by the intermediate generation, by the same triggers like hunger for example or whatever else that can change gener regulation, the point is that if somehow if they didn't have food, the next generation became a bit smaller on average, and the selection pressure from starvation was powerful, then those with genetics that either made them shorter or made the epigenetic directed change in phenotype larger, thatnis the effect cannmale them shorter, would habe more of an impact perhaps and thereby be selected for at a higher rate than would ordinarily be expected from just the selection with no gene regulation passed on from mother to embryo. That isn't quite the same as acquired characteristics beingnpasses down, but it is a change in probability of a useful characteristic being passed down, it acts as accelerant or retardant in a directional way potentially. Which is really interesting if it happens andni don't see how it would not if the gen regulations are directed themselves.
Always like hearing Dawkins speak. The Selfish Gene was transformative to my intellectual development.
Love the Dawk...and Sam Harris has done great work over the years. Of all the public intellectuals, I respect him the most.
Sam: It's just an amazingly beautiful process to think about, in that regard...
Richard: Yes.
I think Sam Harris should consider videoing his pod casts. I would much prefer it, I’m sure many would like it.
Give it a try
Spectacularly interesting. Listened to this 3 times through so far
Lamarckism is still totally valid. Particularly as human beings - We evolve consciously.
Oh my day is now perfect!! Great fab of you both!! Thank you for making retirement less traumatic🇿🇦
Has Richard apologized to Skepchick yet?
@@cdavidlake2 or to every transperson in existence
Who? And why?
Omg. This is such a nail-biting phaseout at the end.
Am I allowed to listen to this on Shabbat?
Yes, if you're a Shabbatheist 😅
@@ahmetdogan5685 🤣🤣
Are you allowed if it’s not? Gut Shabbos
No
If someone else turns on the device and tunes it in.
In the second part of the interview, Dawkins says that in the UK we do not have an equivalent to the First Amendment - he says that there is no law protecting free speech. That is wrong. Article 10 of the ECHR (the right to Freedom of Expression) is directly enforceable in the courts against public bodies (including the police), by virtue of the Human Rights Act.
@@Tomkaya Dawkins is often incorrect when it comes to social issues
So much like “reading” books…each word within having its own etymology. ‘
“Poppycock!” you might say.’
Yet we can cast back through the palimpsest of this one sentence, word by word, not only for our language, but related languages. Say, for instance, _say_:
Middle English seien, from Old English secgan "to utter, inform, speak, tell, relate," from Proto-Germanic *sagjanan "to say" (source also of Old Saxon seggian, Old Norse segja, Danish sige, Old Frisian sedsa, Middle Dutch segghen, Dutch zeggen, Old High German sagen, German sagen "to say").
And my favorite, _poppycock_:
"trivial talk, nonsense," from Dutch dialect pappekak, from Middle Dutch pappe "soft food" (see pap) + kak "dung," from Latin cacare "to excrete" (from PIE root *kakka- "to defecate"). Am I offering you soft dung or just silly nonsense? Your call.
Perhaps a discrete language can be considered as one of many species, some surviving, some threatened, some extinct; and a book or story an individual within a species. It’s been hypothesized that speciation among birds could begin with a change in song, perhaps just one note, one word, though in every other way the bird has not changed. But given the isolation created by the lack of communication, then the resulting physical isolation, different paths of evolution could result for the two (or more) groups. Or perhaps that’s putting the cart before the horse.
Conversation…chromosomes, perhaps? While words are genes? DNA? RNA? Some borrowed, insinuated like a virus from, say, Dutch.
Anyway, I’ll definitely be buying Dawkins’s book.
Richard Dawkins is a treasure.
will listen to this tomorrow, it's too late now here. glad you uploaded this, thanks.
It's good to hear them compliment each other at the end. However, I've noticed that Dawkins has become more reluctant to discuss political Islam.
What I would really like to hear is Sam talking to ChatGTP. 🙂
Listening to this on a hangover is a bit hard 😅
This is fantastic, but also derailing for me. Now I have to put off all my other studies and make room for some of Richard Dawkins’ work. Been a while since I’ve returned to it. Really excited for the new book.
The concept of female biology is something almost nobody disputes though, most reasonable people are perfectly fine with that being independent of identity or even other things like hormones, personality and whatever female characteristics. To me at least its just about people being able to express themselves and define themselves in relation to society as long as it doesn't demand more than generosity and kindness in temperament and basic human respect from other peopl like any other human being, i really think the trans debate is a bit of an abomination from multiple sides, i don't really think there are two sides, more like 57 maybe. Ironically. But the psychological and medical side of it should not je won or lost in public debate, i think that is pretty much a travesty no matter which way it turns out, it should be studied and worked out in a serious way without prejudice if possible, with as few restrictions on personal freedoms as possible. But forget about that, fun episode, thanks.
Exactly 💯
Very interesting! One question: why don't beneficial and deleterious mutations cancel each other other out? Imagine that the moth has 1000 beneficial mutations, one of which is a slightly better resemblance to tree bark. Statistically, he's going to also have 1000 deleterious mutations. So why don't they cancel each other out, leading to a net zero change in likelihood of survival in each generation?
It depends on if the mutation has any selective pressure
25: perhaps the real reason we have eyebrows is because it aids in communication, and therefore our ancestors would have found potential mates who possessed them more attractive than those who didn’t, and thus were more likely to be passed on to the next generation.
This was incredibly interesting to think of genes as viruses. Thank you for broadening my understanding.
I would dearly love to have an explanation of how the Barrel-eyed fish came into being.
Dawkins is only now realising what the void is being filled with.
Sam, PLEASE be at Dawkins' event in L.A. It's his last tour!
These guys are “epic” but this level of genetics is above my pay grade.
A hedgehog high jumper. It can be done! I need funding and scientists to be in this for the long haul.
Sam, you can convert the pdf and put it on a kindle/e-reader.
Everyone's interest is piqued as soon as they see Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins duo.
Only those whose interest is in pseudo-intellectual bs. Sam loves to claim he’s a neuroscientist which couldn’t be further from the truth.
@@HonestTherapist
On Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, the two lowest tiers out of the seven are name-calling and argumentum ad hominem, which are the only two methods I see you repeatedly employing as I check the comment section.
Might you peek at Graham's chart and strive further up the pyramid?
So more light from larger area should be a larger and burlier brow, but the angle from the pretruding brow to the pupil also matters, the flatter the angle and smaller brow, so if the pupil is further out than the brow it should be small, and keep in mind these are population level traits, individuals could be all over the place especially in the modern world with all kinds of lineage mixing for thousands of years
Two of the GOTAS 🐐
The 2 horsemen! About time :) Why Richard not skeptical about trans? Gender having expanded and different meaning than it used to is not a terrible thing if it better describes identity more granularly.
Because it flies completely in the face of evolution and biology ie his whole thing. You can claim next that gender and sex are different but we both know this is a white lie as they have been intentionally conflated for over a decade now.
Better described by who?
That's the problem with "gender" though, isn't it? It describes nothing at all, beyond tired old stereotypes, or people's personalities! And we already have words that describe personalities.
@@L_Martin gender describes how people identify that would make it more granular and useful description than just bio sex. Other words do not better describe how people identify at the highest level.
@@DaboooogA Everyone.
I'm here for the lamarkian theory overview. Like everyone else.
Cool trivia of the day: turtles can't make their mind up about whether they want to live on land or sea!
I think eye brows are good for changing some of the light headed for your eyes, one thing that eye lashes do is to polerize some light for you and spread it out so that when you squint quite a bit less light makes it into your eyes i think eye brows are on a soecitiupart of your skull to stop reflection of light into your eyes from above, say if you are a bit sweaty or something, there may be other advantages, but thats the only readily available thing i can think of. A sort of primitive for of sunglasses, and that you can test, just go out and do stuff in the sun after shaving them off, the reason i think so is where they are, they rest on the part of the skull that is directly above the eyes and where the curve into your eye sockets, its convex and so like a metal. Sphere it is garuanteed to reflect directly into your pupil from some spot if the light source is in roughly the right location. I think this might be the function that keep them on, maybe as we are less and less in the sun outside getting sweaty, our eye brows will get diminished as the function no longer has any measurable effect on survival or mating, but perhaps there is a certain sexiness to it we have also evolved to enjoy and so maybe they stay simply for thar reason. What would be fun, and this is some A grade proper frenology, looking at the correlation of unibrows and the shape of the top of the nose and skull, where it fuses together, it could be that a shaoe that reflects light from there into the eye from more angles has more uni brow over all, but that might be utten nonsense. But one would expect some small correlation even if this source of selection is small amongst other reasons, it is possible that it is and has no effect on unibrow because that part is there for somenother reasons of selection, but its a funny hypothesis, the sun = unibrow.
A perhaps better hypothesis is that it stops water dripping into your eyes when it is raining, by redirecting them off the eyeball.
Handy for maintaining focus when hunting.
The reason that hair is more useful than an extended brow ridge is probably the same as for feathers. It offers more protection, especially when running through forested areas, and is constantly regenerating.
8:10 another huge undertaking, without addressing the background of (our access to) life itself
10:31 life without the egg 10:40 laugh?
10:45 machine 11:01
Perfect ending!
Thank you Sam. Doing better, upgrading from free to paid soon.
Respectfully Hello Dr. Sam Harris. 🌱
If you get around to it, check out the Holy Post Podcast with former Illinois U.S. Senator Adam Kinzinger.
Fyi: 😊🌱
All the best. 🌱😊
You should email him via his website.
i didn't know dawkins wrote a new book. Looks like i gotta get it and get reading.
hahaha i love them both they get along so well
99% sure he is who David in the Alien franchise is based on
So its hard ro imagine this epigenetic direcred change to specialise in deforming toes for example, while it is easy to imagine it having an effect on metabolic rate, or some more primitive function, if you see what i mean. But I seriously doubt that it doesn't function as a retardant or accelerant of selection with respect to any characteristics, there are probably some lasting impacts on the genome due to epigenetic gene regulation, or what do you think, would be cool to hear Richard comment on whether he thinks it could act as an accelerant of selection in certain situations for certain characteristics, after thinking about it ofc.
Harris 2024!
Consider the fact that Dawkins is older than Biden, when you make allowances for age and cognition.
Seriously - I'm dubious about the way Harris is headed.
She passed the bar at a time when it was the most challenging professional exam. Can you imagine her being able to do so today ? She can barely string a sentence together. I can't imagine how impaired her abilities will be in 4 year's time.
@@tonycatman "she can barely string a sentence together" it's time to stop watching fox news my dude. what are you smoking? have you ever heard trump "speak" or whatever it is called this guy does with his lips?
@@opensocietyenjoyer What does this have to do with Trump ? I assumed you were talking about Kamala Harris - apologies if you were referring to Sam, and consider me duly embarrassed.
I'm talking about Kamala, who is almost certain to be the next president, and her obvious cognitive decline.
I made a comparison between Dawkins and Biden because there is a massive difference, and they are around the same age. Also because the extent of Kamala's deterioration goes unnoticed in comparison.
I am the same age as Kamala, and also took professional exams at the same time. The pass rate for mine was 37% each year. The only exams that were more difficult to pass were law exams, which she passed (second time).
At some point in her past, she would have been obviously and exceptionally smart - much as Obama is, or as my professional colleagues are. She very obviously is not like that now.
I've never watched Fox news, by the way. I am not in the US. You could consider me a disinterested observer if you like. I am a little worried that the most powerful person on Earth is likely to have alcohol-related dementia, and that it is getting rapidly worse.
@@tonycatman i _was_ talking about kamala harris. you are deranged
I hope Richard is wrong when he says it's the last
Unfortunately I suspect Dawkins' views have not kept pace with modern evolutionary theory. He comes across as a man with strong views that are not always well supported by the evidence, which is a bit sad. I used to have very high regard for him.
It surely can't be just the dna, it has to be the dna and the phenotype of at least the necessary molecular hardware that expresses the genes, because the encryption of the dna if you like is writtin in code according to that infrastructure and the amino acids the interact with it and the dna. That infrastructure has a blueprint in the dna, but it cannot be decoded without access to its structure and the amino acids as well, so there simply cannot be something like decoding anything about any animals without that translation machinery, basically yes there is technically information encoded on it, but its kind of like an encrupted message which only has information about itself with respect to only itself and has information about the phenotype only when paired with a decoder or transformer that unoackages it into the phenotype, including the transformer , so given knowledge about the transformer/decoder assembler whatever you would like the full set of molecular machinery needed to express genes into protein to be called, you could, but given just the dna, you would have to assume that transformer to bebsure it is encoded correctly, luckily its the same for different animals in large part, but from the perspective of what you can do with the basepair information, its limited as such. I don't think there is a way around that.
There should also be a correlation between the radius of curvature and the thickness of the brow if thatbis a major driver historically of selection for eye brows.
Oh my God this will be amazing
Could be a quite complicated relationship, but the amount of light sent straight into thw eyes from some area of brow would be correlated with the thickness and shape of the brow.
The only convex part of your forehead you can see is where the brow is, just saying, i think its in part responsible. I would definitely check out the radius of convexity and brow thickness, if that correlation is there that s strong indicator that there might be some truth to it.
Would be rather subtle, but if it works like i suggested it could it would act as an accelerant or retardant of evolution with respect to certain tyoes of selection for characteristics, and speed up evolution under certain circumstances, i think that could very well be a thing that happens, it would not speed it up by very much i don't think, but then again i have not studied it in great detail i have only thought a lot about it on the side of doing other things. Its a fun hobby to take dead ideas and ask what version of them could still work, if any can at all.
I'm poor, I can't listen to the whole episode
you can request a free membership / scholarship to hear it all i think
also if the light in the eyes theory of eye brows is true, the position and curve of the brow is important. If your eyes are deeper in your skull the position of the eyebrows should be lower to cover the angle most likley to out the suns in your eyes, but if you are a Japanese woman with shallow eye sockets your bris might be higher up from the edge that is not as defined as on me for example.
Go away please.
Yeah, i think the trajectory of gebetic engineering will go oike this, we will struggle to learn how to safely repair genetic diseases in embryos, then in adults humans, then we will slowly try to modify other things, maybe give people with lactose intolerance the ability to drink milk without getting ill, and so on, and at some point most doping in sports will be genetic manipulation or epigenetic manipulation ti produce larger muscles or a greater lung capacity, and i think the key there is to do both genetic and epigenetic manipulations, then maybe we figure out how ti modify the immune system, design new versions of immune cells for example, or better proteins for certain functions likemmiscle strength, but itnwill be hard and i think it will be some time before we do it, but once we can manipulate higher functions without unforeseen risks then the sky is the limit, but i think ww basically have to be simulate the entire organism to do anything particularly advanced, maybe changing general characteristic is one thing, but an extra pair of hands for example is something entirely different, probably manipulating both the formation of embyos and the genome. Anyway i think how close we are ti actually simulating a human at the molecular level tells us quite a bit about how far away it is, we can barely fold proteins with super ai from our time, with supercomputers.
Atheism is Unstoppable!
The war can end. To end the war you have to understand the deception. It doesn't matter if others don't understand the deception. If you understand the deception you will live better understanding others are deceived. My truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t. Religious people are right because God exists and the universe was created by something incredibly powerful and intelligent, and atheists are right and the intelligent creator of the universe is not what atheists call "sky daddy". And both are wrong because the true God is Spinoza's God and my God. Spinoza was right and nobody listened. The truth that opens your eyes is the Holocaust nazi happened after Spinoza discovered the nature of God centuries ago. Spinoza was censored like I am censored. Censoring is the opposite of searching for the truth. Why ideas are censored? Is not to prove God exists what humanity have always wanted? Emergency! Innocent and vulnerable children are hurt and killed in conflicts because humanity don't fight with honour. The war can be interrupted. Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong believing? Thank you.
You're in the wrong place if you're hoping to persuade others to return to stone age thinking.
It screams possible to me, bu i'm not an expert in evolutionary biology, im a hobbyist that is good at maths and logic.
You're a loon
I really love this conversation. But I just want to say that I think your eyebrow discussion is fascinating but also very one dimensional in the in thinking. I I don't think that eyebrows are only for catching sweat I think one of the primary reasons why we still have eyebrows is for communication. Are facial expression is enhanced by eyebrows. Humans are species that develop communication verbal communication but I think there's a physical body language communication that also is informative. Even dogs can read our facial expressions and our body language very well.
Okay I knew I wasn't the only one with this thought so I found a video that talks about the importance of eyebrows and it's not just about sweater rain. It enhances human cooperation and compassion. Also being able to identify each other is improved with eyebrows.
th-cam.com/video/RA9nUUEuPJ8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pL3rQ2S1tPKYIM5j
Dawkins said himself that it's probably not the reason we have eyebrows. He was simply using it as an example.
Sam,.. you have to take care the only your friends, Richard Dawkins
We have to be able ti at least piecewise simulate the formation of an embryo at the molecular level to really know for sure what some specific dna modification will do, and then also the method of manipulation must also be simulated andnchecked for spectrums of errors we expect and then Simulations of the formation of phenotype again with a certain amount and tyoe of error our methods could produce and that would be hard.
Anyway such epigenetic acceleration of evolution would habe to evolve tk effect different functions, like bone density maybe, or long toes, independently and onoy become narrow andnsoecialized by being selected for, and so its doubtful how complicated those accelerants could be maybe, interesting thing to inquire into.
Richard Pimpin' Dawkins!
Thanks
Asia tour please
He's stretching too much. This is DATA. Any scientist knows that we lose data in noise. As Sam said about the postcard clearly written in red and blue at the same hour: he couldn't read it.
What is it 2008 again?
Great fun, most ideas are irrelevant like bad air causing disease, ofc some version remains, the airborn spreading of toxins and pathogens, but its not the same thing smell is irrelevant, and its not the only way to get sick. Flat earth is another, but sadly it just bottoms out at a map projections and ruined dreams, you can choose coordinates to make the earth a flat disk and preserve the correct physics but, its just using a funny coordinate system sadly.
Investing in the security and well-being of nations like Ukraine and Israel, and extending support to the Iranian people like smart sanctions on Oil exports of Islamic Republic but letting Iranians make money online through services, is crucial because our populations share a common wealth of talents, technologies, and values that foster economic growth, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. This understanding is lost on extremist ideologies like fascism, Marxism, and jihadism, which often rely on zero-sum thinking. For evidence, consider the arguments presented in 'Enlightenment Now' by Steven Pinker. Those who disagree are invited to engage in a constructive debate at Atheist Republic, where we can explore the merits of liberal values and the flaws in authoritarian models. Embracing liberalism allows for mutually beneficial outcomes, whereas extremist ideologies often require someone to lose in order for them to gain.
Doesn't somebody have to lose in order for somebody to win? How to you measure winning if there are no losers? Winning is by its nature a comparative or relative category.
For example, a tribal chiefton in the jungle may feel like it's winning because it is highest in the hierarchy. In it's mind it thinks it is Jeff Bezos. Meanwhile, the poorest person in civilization is materially wealthier than that chiefton. Inspire of this, that poor person feels like it is losing and now winning.
Anyway, based on the way you make your arguments in a dogmatic and preachy way, I don't think you would understand what I'm asking you to notice.
@@benjaminfranklin7263 If you don't think someone will understand what you have to say, then why did you say it? Write it differently. Teach don't preach.
In a race, someone wins and the rest lose. In a cooperative hunt, everyone eats even if one hunter made the kill. Maybe the tribal chief gets first pick. In a winner-takes-all system, everyone else loses. How would you like to see humanity treated?
@@RetNemmoc555 Just because everybody in he hunt gets to share the spoils doesn't mean that one person did not perform the finishing blow. You can choose to measure that, or not. Or, measure excellence, or not.
Just because the rest of the tribe also gets a share of the spoils, that doesn't invalidate the hierarchy in which the chief is on the top.
If you ignore that hierarchy then there is no chief. I'm not saying that that'a a bad outcome.
But, at the end of the world where all needs are met people will turn towards games for hedonic pleasure. Even if those hedonic pleasures and games are not tied to material needs. And in in those games there are winners and losers.
I'm not saying its a good or bad outcome for there to be winners and losers. I'm just saying that there are and that's inevitable. I'll tell you why it's inevitable, because it is tied up with birthing drive. The ones who don't have a drive to win, even if in imaginary games not tied to material need, are the ones who will breed. The ones who don't want to win won't breed. They have no reason to, or they have relatively less reason to, and that relatively less reason is enough to cause selection pressures to favor one over the other.
Well well well the king is back. Him and hitch changed how I think about so many things
Well well well you must get your head checked because both of these guys are clowns.
Oh no, will it be about gene-centrism or woke stuff?
audio drop 5:26 - 5:31?
😮😮😮 محمد وتريد هدم الكعبة يبدو ان ليمي جننتك
I KNEW LEMMY WAS ROTTEN!
God bless you dude, good luck out there in this crazy world! ✌️👌✌️
❤
Pretty much useless information into electrolyzing the theories of evolution