The behaviours he’s describing occur in every generation of these animals without being taught. They are instinctive. Therefore these specific behaviours are the result of something innate to the animal. Some animals can discover new techniques and teach them. It’s not the new techniques that are innate to these animals, it’s the behaviours that lead to discovery and teaching that are innate.
@@simonhibbs887 meaning once you phenotype a kind of unbounded learning from the environment (including other organisms), the kind humans have, subsequent creations are not directly phenotyped? So there is no phenotype for an internet. It's something else entirely.
@@simonhibbs887 For advanced human societies, we have an N of 1, so we can't say definitively. We only know a nest is a phenotype because we see many kinds of birds, and many kinds of nests. It could be that the internet is similar in a sense - perhaps every advanced civilization invents a "kind of internet"...
@@RoiHolden That may be so, and I get where you're coming from, but that's as much due to facts of how physics works than how humans are specifically. I think it's more useful to think in terms of the behaviours that lead to these technologies because those behaviours will lead to all sorts of contingent adaptations within almost any environment. If a beaver is stuck on an island without streams it won't build a dam. It also won't do anything else much instead regardless of what other resources are available. Put a human on any island with any combination of resources and you'll get them making all sorts of crazy stuff depending on the resources available.
From a quantum evolutionary genetics perspective, the concept of the extreme phenotype can be examined in terms of how quantum processes and genetic mechanisms interact to produce unique adaptations and traits that are crucial for evolutionary survival. Extreme phenotypes are traits that are at the outer limits of the distribution of characteristics within a population, often resulting in unique adaptations that may be advantageous in specific environments or under certain selective pressures. Quantum mechanics introduces a level of unpredictability and fundamental uncertainty at the molecular and subatomic levels. For instance, quantum phenomena such as quantum superposition and entanglement can play a role in how genetic information is expressed or transferred. These quantum effects might influence mutation rates or the interactions between molecules involved in gene expression, leading to variations that could result in extreme phenotypic traits. The concept of quantum coherence and the non-classical behavior of particles may be implicated in the biological processes at the cellular level, influencing how genetic material is copied, how mutations occur, and how cellular responses to environmental stressors are regulated. In evolutionary genetics, extreme phenotypes are often considered products of natural selection and genetic drift. However, when viewed through a quantum lens, these extreme traits could also be seen as emerging from a non-deterministic process where the fundamental uncertainty of quantum states contributes to genetic variation. For instance, the random behavior of electrons and the energy states of molecules can lead to mutations during DNA replication. While many mutations are neutral or detrimental, some can be beneficial and may contribute to the development of an extreme phenotype that provides an adaptive advantage in specific contexts. Moreover, quantum evolutionary genetics might suggest that the process of selection could be influenced by quantum entanglement, where the state of one particle is connected to another, potentially leading to complex, non-local interactions that influence evolutionary outcomes. This could provide an additional layer of complexity in understanding how certain extreme traits become dominant or persist within populations, especially when these traits involve complex traits that are influenced by multiple genes and epigenetic factors. The idea of quantum evolution implies that genetic diversity and adaptation can occur not only through classical mutations and natural selection but also through mechanisms that involve quantum effects at the molecular level. This perspective challenges traditional views and opens up new avenues for research into how extreme phenotypes develop and why they may provide a survival advantage under certain conditions. It suggests that the genetic landscape is not merely a product of classical genetics but could also be shaped by the probabilistic and interconnected nature of quantum phenomena, leading to the emergence of unique and adaptive traits in evolutionary biology.
10:19 I feel like the interviewer had a good.point at the end. The beaver's genes sculpt the landscape, and then the environmental pressures sculpt the genes. You always change that which you interact with, even when they change you more. Seems like it would cause specialized phenotypes that work well in the environment that they build.
Yup, any rational man or woman who pays enough attention in their lives knows this, yet it's crazy that it tooks biologists and ecologists so long to figure this out.
Evolution doesn't claim to have all the answers, but it provides a robust framework for understanding the diversity of life on Earth. Science is about asking questions and seeking evidence-based answers. It's a continuous journey of discovery!
Dawkins’ view on beavers’ dams highlights the “extended phenotype,” where genes influence not just the organism but its environment. Questions arise about how much of dam-building is genetic vs. learned, how cooperation fits into the selfish gene framework, and how such complex behaviors evolved step by step.
The examples are very well-chosen, though I'm not entirely convinced by the theory itself. It seems to me that genes might select for certain cognitive processes rather than directly for specific features of the world. That said, this isn't really my area of expertise.
I like and have learned a lot listening to Richard Dawkins. I consider myself a believer but not in the classical sense. My beliefs center around exploring and explaining consciousness. I believe consciousness lives on in an evolved way in another dimension after the dimension we are currently experiencing. I am interested in a serious ongoing scientific study on the subject of consciousness. I am impressed with the theories of the Physicist Federico Fagan.
@@CharlesFiandaca , Thanks for posting the person you are impressed with; I'll check them out. I do agree with you the consciousness continues in another dimension. I have had glimpses of what that looks like. I have been assisted/helped along by humans/beings that are a LOT more experienced than I am and continue to assist me with my journey. Safe journeys.v
While there are gaps in knowledge with consciousness it's clear it's just the process of being alive and aware, essential for survival and all life has it. Unconscious= dead game over! There's no support for duelism in neuroscience and plenty against. No ghost in the machine that moves on.
Dawkins makes a logical case for evolution without considering religion or other spookiness. No, "yes, but" arguments for him. He is a knight in our secular hearts.
Nah. You're averse to everything Divine. If any such lexicon includes terms like God, spirit, soul, wisdom, faith, truth, justice, being, essence, being, etc. you call it all religious without discerning it as metaphysics or religion, just so you can throw it away and disregard it. Criticizing something isn't wrong, only when such a critic doesn't fundamentally understand what it is that they criticize and therefore are they a detractor; he who denigrates - a most ignoble action.
@@codymarch164Exactly right! I couldn't have said it better myself. They are not secular or atheistic but antireligious and antitheistic. Their religion lies in the machine which is everything in their mind. And Dawkins is their pope. Magdalena Skipper and Philip H M Campbell are their two main cardinals.
10:31 This displays a likeness in things of difference in this very revolution and procession. All are part of this abidance and is a phenomenal form of harmony and interdependence. Thus, there is relation and communication. Atheists will say there's only the material and everything is deterministic, therefore indirectly stating that all of phenomena is by mere chance, accident, and without reason, no purpose, but, determinism is not mere accident for there is Reason, and 'nothing in nature is vain'. How can such a person demonstrate that harmony, relation, interdependence, even of things averse, how is all this mere chance, accident or without reason.. Metaphysics principles are observable everywhere.
Theists must either believe in a grand plan, hence determinism and no free will, effectively. Or in no plan, free will, just like atheists stand, but then no all-knowing God.
@@peweegangloku6428 Evolution predicted the existence of the giant hawk moth. It predicted the existence of, and layers within which to find, Tiktaalik which is an intermediate animal between aquatic and terrestrial animals. It predicted that humans and chimpanzees would share more ERVs than humans and gorilla and more between those to than humans and orangutans. Between 30 and 40 million years ago, Australia and South America were connected by a continental land bridge, which is now Antarctica, to form the supercontinent known as Gondwana. Therefore, if evolution and plate tectonics are true, we ought to be able to find evidence for marsupial migration from South America to Australia via Antarctica, dating to the Eocene period when they were connected. Such fossils were then found. There are tons, and tons of examples.
Scientism is utterly insufficient to satisfactorily explain the mysteries of the universe. The explanatory potential of science has been vastly overexaggerated in recent decades. There's good reason to be skeptical about the overconfidence emanating from the so-called New Atheism movement, including the fact that people like Dawkins rely on metaphysical, empirically unverifiable assumptions to even engage in science in the first place.
@@Edruezzi The mysteries of the universe I referred to are precisely those that arise when we reflect on the very foundations of science itself, namely the principles we take for granted but cannot empirically verify. Those include but are not restricted to: the belief that the laws of nature are consistent across time and space, the validity of logical reasoning, the trust in logic and mathematics as universally applicable tools for deriving truth, the assumption that the external world exists independently of our perception and is accessible through observation, the principle that events are caused by prior states, the confidence in the human mind's capacity to perceive, analyze and understand the universe accurately, even though our cognitive faculties evolved for survival, not truth. The belief that unbiased observation is possible, the preference for simpler explanations, which although pragmatic has no empirical justification as universally correct, and even the implicit ethical stance that truth is valuable and worth pursuing, which cannot be derived from empirical observation alone.
@@razadara Before I block you I will hasten to point out that none of those items you listed matter. Some traditional philosophers may say they matter but they don't. The universe is comprehensible and that's that. More modern work has shown that they don't matter. The validity of logical reasoning is today a topic that has leaped far beyond the apparently Aristotelian level you seem to be nudging toward. As science since Galileo has demonstrated, Aristotle wouldn't have understood simple rectilinear motion. The universe would work excellently if there were no humans and no scientists to study it. Most of what you listed do not constitute mysteries about the universe. Meanwhile the questions about the universe that do not matter> The ones that do matter are either the known knowns or unknown unknowns of Donald Rumsfeldian discourse or are beyond your scope. The article will be left for some minutes for you, and presumably others, to peruse it, and then the author will proceed to delete it and apply other safeguards. Since you seem to be well educated or at least well-read I would recommend you stop hanging around TH-cam comment sections and avail yourself of actual books and/or educational courses, so you won't be wrestling and hanging out with flat-Earthers, creationists, religious fanatics, racists, outright fools and so on.
@@razadara By the way, the "laws" of nature are consistent across time and space, or astrophysics would have been impossible and pointless. Contrary to what science fiction authors and the makers of Star Wars, Star Trek and so on would have us believe, the chemistry and physics done here on Earth are exactly those of the rest of the universe.
@@razadara Note your first sentence. You mention questions having to do with the nature of the scientific endeavor. Those are not mysteries of the universe.
@@Edruezzi Appreciate your responses, but I do find it interesting how some of your responses tend to be more about speculation on me personally rather than what I had to say. Speculating on my TH-cam browsing habits, suggesting I may end up "hanging out" with certain groups, and mentioning "blocking me" -- it's all out of place, especially considering you've started this conversation. Just to clarify, this is one of the first comments I've ever left on TH-cam, and the only reason I did so is because I'm interested in discussing ideas. Ideas are to be weighed based on their merit, not on one's assumption about those presenting them. Shifting the focus onto perceived habits or motivations does absolutely nothing for the betterment of the discussion nor brings us closer to any semblance of truth. Let's keep the focus where it belongs: on the arguments themselves. Now, to address more directly some of your points: Where you say, "the universe is comprehensible, and that's that" you give us a statement rather than an explanation. That the universe is intelligible does not explain why it is intelligible. That there is a uniformity of natural laws, mathematics applies, and the rational structure of reality are all contingent-- they could have been otherwise. For example, chaotic or non-intelligible universes are conceivable - and even plausible in a multiverse context some scientists propose. The real question is why the universe we inhabit is coherent, ruled by discernible laws, accessible to reason and so on. Those are not trivial or redundant concerns as you seem to suggest, they are foundational mysteries that science itself rests upon. As for "The universe would work excellently without humans or scientists to study it" I find this assertion to be both true and irrelevant. Surely, the universe does not need human observation to function, but this misses the deeper issue of how such a universe so finely tuned to be intelligible would exist in the first place. Precisely the fact that we can comprehend it, and that mathematics falls in so beautifully with the form taken by its structure, has really enormous questions surrounding it. I absolutely agree: the universe is mathematically intelligible independently of whether people happen to study it or not, and this fact calls insistently for an explanation. Dismissal of the problem for lack of importance does nothing to the problem but attempts evasion. Regarding the notion, which you appear to have edited out, to the effect that "alternatives have not produced knowledge" I would say that in this regard, such arguments mistake practical application for truth-seeking. Science no doubt is the superior methodology with respect to producing practical knowledge and technology, but science itself depends upon a host of metaphysical presuppositions it can by no means justify. The alternative options, such as philosophy and metaphysics, might not yield a better spaceship, but they do make a determined effort to answer some of those questions that science assumes. In order to reject alternatives simply because they do not provide concrete "knowledge" is to misunderstand their purpose and to overlook the fact that science itself is based upon metaphysical principles which these disciplines explore. Equally politely, I would suggest that many scientists depend on the very logical fallacies they complain about in others. For example, the statement "only science explains anything" is itself a non-empirical claim, circular in its reasoning: it assumes what it needs to prove. This illustrates another scientism bias that often slips by unremarked: the habit of overlooking its own limitations while disallowing all other sorts of valid knowledge. I hope this exchange serves to make one reflect on why the intelligibility and structure of the universe are not just a convenience for science or only the product of human thought, but something actually profound, and yes, mysterious, about the universe. The search for ultimate truth wherever it may lead is helped along by humility and sincere openness to ideas in a meritorious fashion. I wish you the best on your intellectual journey and thank you for your exchange.
That's the incoherence of Dr. Peterson's theology. Dr. Peterson's theology revolves around something called "the logos," but according to evolutionary biology in human language, it's the language itself that is the niche. Dr. Peterson knows that the logos can't explain how lately, so-called "creators" can be permanently reconciled with their so-called "creations." The environment is larger than the use of language. The universe is that much larger than the "logos." However, according to Dr. Peterson's theology, the logos would have to be larger than the universe. But the universe is larger than the logos. Therefore, Dr. Peterson's theology is logically incoherent, as the logos is only an expression of a unique human niche available to every healthy human being.
the allele A for behavior X in organism Y resides in organism Z. And so allele A encodes a behavior in a different organism from which it found. Action at a distance is the historical term for gravity, appropriated by Dawkins here to describe one aspect of the extended phenotype
@@Myd-z7s Our mitochondria are a different organism which does way more than encode behavior in a different organism but is an integral part of the organism in which it is found. We find many similar arrangements throughout nature such as the bacteria in our digestive system I just remembered but also very many symbiotic relationships among organisms within and outside of the body's of which they are in reality an integral part. I believe we can broaden our view of these Earthly symbiotic relationships to see that it could be said that the entire Universe is a symbiotic relationship within a single organism.
Good stuff! The question then becomes: Is 'man' (as opposed to the naturally abiding aboriginal/indigenous) a parasite now, who has made lesions in his own brain via a necro-logic and neuro-toxic environment that does not cultivate health but incubates illness, and from aligning with a disabling technology that stops him moving and behaving naturally as his genes intended? The definitive host being the Earth itself which is gouged out and deformed via a parasitic 'economic' system that is of course anything but economic.
@@asyetundetermined *"This question alone betrays a complete misunderstanding of how evolutionary processes occur."* ... With _homo sapiens_ proudly perched at the very top of the biological / intellectual food chain, we have absolutely evolved to be 'fearless" of all other species. That being the case, how has Hulk-m5e mischaracterized how evolutionary processes work?
@ firstly, because in questioning whether or not this can be made to happen, it is evident that OP is not of the belief that we are currently fearless of all other species. Secondly, and far more importantly, evolution as a process does not “make” any animal do or become anything. This is assigning agency where none exists.
@@asyetundetermined *"Secondly, and far more importantly, evolution as a process does not “make” any animal do or become anything. This is assigning agency where none exists."* ... An insect that evolves to have a stinger or poisonous venom has been "made" more formidable than its predecessors. That's a biological fact.
Biology is a natural philosophy too😂 And, the extended synthesis is definitely a hot topic in the philosophy of biology 😂learn more about philosophy might help.
Really? Do you claim science deals with "why" rather than "how"? Listen to Feynman, you can't pursue why in science. Science can let us understand how things work, but we can't pose any meaning into descriptions.
@Phronesis1037 Quite right, but in the context of this channel, which is Closer to Truth not Closer to How Things Work, I personally watch it to hear opinions on the great "whys" of existence.
Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection)…
Whoever he is, he pompously is trying to bedazzle us all with complexity, just like Jordan Petersen. Whereas as Prof Dawkins is trying to simplify his point that such that even a simpleton can understand his argument.
he's slacking-off again, it is very well documented that beaver succession ponds alter fish and amphibian populations, who knows? may be there were castoroides that demonstrated to Belize's ancestors the optimal way to catch fish
Every lion is a lion brave and powerful, every goat is weak and coward but why every human is different some are brave some are coward some are weak and some strong.
The answer to your question depends on your motive behind the question. Are you asking because you genuinely don't know the answer and would like to know? Okay, if that's the case, I will tell you: Jesus did not come to Earth to cure physical blindness. He came to Earth to cure spiritual blindness. The atheist does not have room in his heart for God, because he thinks the world can run on its own without God. By the way, that's been The atheist attitude since the world began, and how is that working out for everyone? Every day you read in the newspaper that people are being robbed and murdered. If mankind can be moral without God, why aren't we doing so? Well, I'm waiting! If you think you can be moral without a perfect moral being giving you the standard to live by, if you think you can follow the law of ethics without the perfect lawgiver, you are spiritually blind, even though you claim you can see. And because you claim to see, your guilt remains. On the other hand, if you're asking your question just to pick a quarrel, then I don't have an answer for you.
When Dawkins or any defender of his creed explains to me how the ideas of Charles Darwin even ADDRESS, let alone satisfactorily ACCOUNT for the lifecycle of a butterfly, then I'll think he ́s getting us Closer To Truth.
@jayk5549 , Hey, wait a minute, I am a Virginia. So, I know there's a Santa Claus and that's the TRUTH. It's just one of those mysteries. Happy holidays 2U2. v
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 , P.S.: Since, I don't know you in real life and I haven't EVER discussed that concept (nothing exists & it's all an illusion), with you, you have no idea why, or what my motivation is about why I have commented. v
@ somewhat like humans building a fire to cook and avoid freezing to death? Extended phenotypes does not prove evolution. It doesn’t amount to anything for that matter.
@shahidmiah917 nobody says it does, but it's all in the genes. Evolution is a fact, there's nothing to prove here. The theory explains how it happens, not that it does. Just like gravity is a fact, and Einstein's theory explains it.
@@nigh7swimming gravity is a fact, evolution is not. It’s a figment of the imagination. The coded complexity of genes itself disproves Evolution. Do you understand the structure and function of genes?
Really? That concept "there is a designer" reminds me of all those Matrix fans think think all this experience is a computer simulation. I guess it's as good as believing there's a designer. v
You mean "theistic" evolution then right? "Darwinian" would specifically refer to natural, unguided, "godless" evolution. It doesn't matter anyway because that term is only used by creationists and I think you used it just because you're so used to hear it from Answers in Genesis
@ I agree to some extent, but I’ll say two things. First, I don’t know anyone who actually lives their life with complete disregard for their own feelings. So while reason, logic, data, etc. trump feelings in a technical sense, feelings exist nonetheless. There must be a reason for that beyond mere survival. I’d say it’s tied directly to the concept of justice and ultimately back to truth. Second, I didn’t actually say anything about feelings. I was referring to purpose… and by extension, meaning. A meaningless and purposeless existence suggests illogical and irrational reasoning.
Consider the possibility you might be missing something. Let that possibility haunt you. You'll be wiser for it, if significantly less self-satisfied. Consider also whether you understand his arguments, methods, and evidence well enough to critique its internal logic. And finally consider that contingency is not mutually exclusive from meaning. Just because his theory doesn't yield some reduction of meaning inside the processes of biology, doesn't, for example, preclude a very meaningful life studying these processes.
@@MasoudJohnAzizi Dawkins doesn't deny that consciousness comes from emergence. He avoids the metaphysical debate entirely. He's a naturalist. You're projecting your view because you believe in metaphysics.
@micahgmiranda Physicalism or materialism assumes that consciousness emerges from matter. I am currently convinced that physicalism/materialism is false due to reasons furnished by the "knowledge argument" provided by Dr. Frank Jackson.
@MasoudJohnAzizi physicalism is a monistic view. Dawkins doesn't deny pluralism, but he does deny dualism. I just watched Jeffrey Kaplan's explanation of Mary's Room, and he basically says that Jackson is strawmanning. This also ties into Vervaeke's view of the four types of knowledge, and that meaning comes from the non-propositional.
@@AshishSoham112even scientists have proven that we don't exist , and impossible to exist . Materialism has been debunked. That's why science is my religion 👍
I love Dawkins wit but strongly argue against darwinian evolution yes micro changes but no way we are here via one source and he knows it but he is an vowed darwinian so he would never recant that despite so much recent within 30 years DNA evidence etc
I am a biological evolution proponent, but my biggest problem with natural selection is the timeframe involved: *Example:* The "Hornet Moth" is a moth that has evolved to look just like a wasp. However, there must have been numerous lesser-evolved iterations that appeared before the version that looks just like a wasp. Most likely, a moth with any brightly colored dots or stripes would have been an easier target to spot and eat than the other blandly colored moths. Unless this "Hornet Moth" experienced a *single, wasp-looking mutation,* then it doesn't make sense how all of the previous "lesser versions" led up to its wasp-like look. ... They all should have been gobbled up along the way! BTW: Richard Dawkins is a main character in my latest cartoon!
The mutation would only have to have allowed it enough color so that the birds avoided it. A big splodge of orange (or yellow - I think for European hornets it evolved to mimick) might have been enough initially. At first, the birds might not yet have evolved good insect distinction instincts. An arms race may have then ensued of disguise and disguise recognition between it and its predator. The predator could have at first been adverse to anything yellow, but then birds who could spot distinctions between striped and non-striped insects would have an advantage, so they would prevail, eat the plain yellow moths, so then striped moths would prevail, then birds who could distinguish them would prevail and so on and so forth until it gets refined into a hornet looking moth after 1000's upon 1000's of generations.
@@paulrussell1207 *"The mutation would only have to have allowed it enough color so that the birds avoided it. A big splodge of orange (or yellow - I think for European hornets it evolved to mimick) might have been enough initially. "* ... As pointed out in my opening comment, a random spot of color or stripe is what would make the moth more susceptible to being eaten. It wouldn't be until the moth was fully outfitted in "wasp attire" that its typical predators would leave it alone. Why do you think a bird would avoid it because of a random colored spot? *"At first, the birds might not yet have evolved good insect distinction instincts. An arms race may have then ensued of disguise and disguise recognition between it and its predator."* ... Again, you are assuming that all prior variations of the hornet moth would have been equally suitable at confusing predators. You are presupposing "weaknesses" in the birds' evolutionary path as an excuse for how the hornet moth was able to evolve into looking like a wasp. There is no evidence to support that birds were ill-equipped to eat insects during the evolution of the hornet moth. *"then birds who could distinguish them would prevail and so on and so forth until it gets refined into a hornet looking moth after 1000's upon 1000's of generations."* ... Let's say I'm an African warthog that mutated to have a "fuzzy-balled, lion-like tail." Now, a bunch of hyenas appear and start attacking the sounder of hogs. That tail isn't going to deter any hyenas from attacking me nor would any of them confuse me for a lion. ... Once I've been eaten, that's the official end of that particular mutation. That being the case, how is a single-colored spot (or stripe) on a moth going to confuse any predators when it could just as easily have made it easier to spot and eat?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC If there were no other yellow insects, then yellow might be enough to trigger "uh oh a hornet" in the bird's brain, as it is quicker to spot yellow than identify a hornet so the more adverse to yellow insects the bird was, the bigger the advantage, so as pointed out in my response it would not make it "more susceptible to being eaten". It is simple odds, the magpie that is less often fatally stung by a hornet passes on its DNA more often. However when food gets scarce there would be a selection pressure that would mean discerning magpies gained an advantage. It is not a "weakness" in the bird, it is just such that in the initial conditions there was no advantage, in spotting the difference between a harmless yellow insect and a hornet. The bird gleaned no advantage, why would the magpie instinctively not be yellow-insect phobic if hornets were to begin with the only yellow insect? There is mimicry in mammals in Africa, young cheetahs look like honey badgers. If the mutation is enough to deter a predator it is effective. The last part is explained by the first answer really, with all due respect it feels like you are trying not to understand it but I guess in good faith there is something you are missing. I think it is that you can't imagine that simple mutations can deter attack, at first, but animals don't go around with a handbook of species, they have to make split second decisions based on color schemes in their environment.
@@paulrussell1207 *"If there were no other yellow insects, then yellow might be enough to trigger "uh oh a hornet" in the bird's brain"* ... That's the very best you've got? Yellow wasn't present anywhere else when the moth grew a yellow spot? ... and all the other predators freaked out over it? .... Seriously? .... That's absolutely laughable! *"There is mimicry in mammals in Africa, young cheetahs look like honey badgers."* ... Mimicry implies intent. Are you suggesting "intent" came into play when the "hornet moth" evolved to look like a wasp? It wasn't a "random mutation," but rather a "strategic reconfiguration?" Look, it's better to simply admit that you have *no idea* (nor does any biologist) how a hornet moth managed to evolve to look just like a wasp. It doesn't fit within the natural selection template and further research is needed to resolve the issue.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Mimicry, like many words has more than one definition and is absolutely a term used in biology to describe the phenomena we are discussing, to quote from the... Merriam Webster dictionary Mimicry: "a superficial (see superficial sense 2b) resemblance of one organism to another or to natural objects among which it lives that secures it a selective advantage (such as protection from predation)". According to the Oxford dictionary: Mimicry: "In ecology, mimicry is when a species resembles another species to confuse a third species." So I rest my case there on my use of the word there, I am unsure if you will now say at this point that the dictionaries are wrong. (Seems like something you might write to be fair). You definitely reason in bad faith, by trying to strawman a pretty closed case within biology by exaggerating and saying that it requires that there was "nothing else yellow" in the environment. I already put it correctly before but once again, it need only require that there was not a significant abundance of similarly colored insects to make it worthy for birds not to just avoid all insects of a particular color (in this case yellow), for the mutation to stick. That is just a fact. As I said, it is a closed case in evolutionary biology. You will see that even some humans who are intelligent enough to consciously know there are no harmful spiders in a certain environment will react with fear, nevertheless, to the shape and movement of a harmless house spider. So why do you think a bird is going to be flawless at recognizing a mutation on an insect when its hunting it at high speed and its life is on the line? Even if it recognized it as not-being-a-hornet just some of the time and not others, that would be enough to give the mutation the advantage, which would compound over generations. Biologists have done plenty research on it, I am skeptical of your first claim that you accept evolution as you seem not to really understand it and seem to be trying not to understand it, but if you really do accept it and understand the basic principles, there is a book you could read to build upon the understanding, to add an understanding of mimicry in biology to your knowledge called, "Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry" It is written by a renowned evolutionary biologist called Graeme D. Ruxton from St Andrews University and it was published 20 years ago. I am quite sure you will know it to be totally flawed in its research (even though, until you read this comment you didn't even know mimicry was a word in biology). I am sure you will know this without reading it, by the power of your TH-cam musings, but nevertheless, in case you actually have a curious mind, I'll link to it below. www.amazon.co.uk/Avoiding-Attack-Evolutionary-Ecology-Crypsis/dp/0198528604
@@evaadam3635 uh, the religious worship Trump, who will now try to destroy America’s democracy in the process of enriching himself and his family. So I’ll stick with my atheism. At least it doesn’t lust after hate and division.
@@longcastle4863.. it is not WORSHIPPING that can save your lost soul... It is your sincere faith in a loving God that can... ... and in emptiness (hell), there is no democracy for you, unless you change now before it is too late...
Richard Dawkins is very wrong according to Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, SCIENCE is wrong about Religion/Spirituality. Science has not answered most of the Big questions in nature because Science has limitations to what it can do. Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, mathematician, broadcaster and author Marcus du Sautoy in his book, . He took over this position from atheist Richard Dawkins in 2008. What are some things we can't know? 1. Could we ever know if we hit the bottom, or will we find out that it's infinitely divisible? 2. What is infinitely large? Is the universe infinite or finite? 3. What if I took a spaceship out, would I hit a wall? What's on the other side of the wall? Is there a dome we'd ultimately hit? Do we live in a simulation? (Marcus du Sautoy believes so) 4. What is consciousness? Will the machines we are currently making some day become conscious? There are still a lot of things we do not know. It’s important that people realize there are limitations to science. “Perhaps we need to think about more positive dialogue perhaps with science and society and issues of religion, for example, and we look for ways can share the different ways we look at the world rather than polarizing it,” du Sautoy said. "I wonder, whether as I come to the end of my exploration at the limits of knowledge, I have changed my mind about declaring myself an atheist. With my definition of a God as the existence of things we cannot know, to declare myself an atheist would mean that I believe there is nothing that we cannot know. I don’t believe that anymore. In some sense I think I have proved that this God does exist. It’s now about exploring what quality this God has." From atheist to agnostic believer after more than a decade of holding the position as Professor of Public Understanding of Science.
I'm neutral. Mysteries are FUN. I have my own opinions & experiences. FOREVER is an interesting concept. Life on earth is so fast and quick. All that god stuff is helpful to many humans. One needs to have some idea about what you do when one's body can't sustain life. I think being a star for billions of years might be FUN. Eventually, I'm going to find out. I'll get back to you then. Also, I'm trying to figure out how I can travel through black holes and end up at different locations in the universe. Stay in the moment, it's all we have...v
Nice to see Richard is still kicking around. Thanks for posting.
Dawkins is a legend 🎶❤️
A true inspiration, I've been diving into Mr. Dawkins' work a lot as of late.
I will never get tired of Dick Dawkins talking about the extended phenotype. Ever.
Dawkin's explanation is clear, precise, and insightful.
For those wondering where this was shot, it’s the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
Been a fan for some years. Love the new videos. 🙏
Richard Dawkins! ❤❤❤
Amazing to see Richard Dawkins on CTT after all!
How far does this concept extend? Is the internet an extended phenotype?
The behaviours he’s describing occur in every generation of these animals without being taught. They are instinctive. Therefore these specific behaviours are the result of something innate to the animal.
Some animals can discover new techniques and teach them. It’s not the new techniques that are innate to these animals, it’s the behaviours that lead to discovery and teaching that are innate.
@@simonhibbs887 meaning once you phenotype a kind of unbounded learning from the environment (including other organisms), the kind humans have, subsequent creations are not directly phenotyped? So there is no phenotype for an internet. It's something else entirely.
@@RoiHolden Yes, because it's not inevitable that every human, or human society would produce an internet.
@@simonhibbs887 For advanced human societies, we have an N of 1, so we can't say definitively. We only know a nest is a phenotype because we see many kinds of birds, and many kinds of nests. It could be that the internet is similar in a sense - perhaps every advanced civilization invents a "kind of internet"...
@@RoiHolden That may be so, and I get where you're coming from, but that's as much due to facts of how physics works than how humans are specifically. I think it's more useful to think in terms of the behaviours that lead to these technologies because those behaviours will lead to all sorts of contingent adaptations within almost any environment.
If a beaver is stuck on an island without streams it won't build a dam. It also won't do anything else much instead regardless of what other resources are available. Put a human on any island with any combination of resources and you'll get them making all sorts of crazy stuff depending on the resources available.
From a quantum evolutionary genetics perspective, the concept of the extreme phenotype can be examined in terms of how quantum processes and genetic mechanisms interact to produce unique adaptations and traits that are crucial for evolutionary survival. Extreme phenotypes are traits that are at the outer limits of the distribution of characteristics within a population, often resulting in unique adaptations that may be advantageous in specific environments or under certain selective pressures.
Quantum mechanics introduces a level of unpredictability and fundamental uncertainty at the molecular and subatomic levels. For instance, quantum phenomena such as quantum superposition and entanglement can play a role in how genetic information is expressed or transferred. These quantum effects might influence mutation rates or the interactions between molecules involved in gene expression, leading to variations that could result in extreme phenotypic traits. The concept of quantum coherence and the non-classical behavior of particles may be implicated in the biological processes at the cellular level, influencing how genetic material is copied, how mutations occur, and how cellular responses to environmental stressors are regulated.
In evolutionary genetics, extreme phenotypes are often considered products of natural selection and genetic drift. However, when viewed through a quantum lens, these extreme traits could also be seen as emerging from a non-deterministic process where the fundamental uncertainty of quantum states contributes to genetic variation. For instance, the random behavior of electrons and the energy states of molecules can lead to mutations during DNA replication. While many mutations are neutral or detrimental, some can be beneficial and may contribute to the development of an extreme phenotype that provides an adaptive advantage in specific contexts.
Moreover, quantum evolutionary genetics might suggest that the process of selection could be influenced by quantum entanglement, where the state of one particle is connected to another, potentially leading to complex, non-local interactions that influence evolutionary outcomes. This could provide an additional layer of complexity in understanding how certain extreme traits become dominant or persist within populations, especially when these traits involve complex traits that are influenced by multiple genes and epigenetic factors.
The idea of quantum evolution implies that genetic diversity and adaptation can occur not only through classical mutations and natural selection but also through mechanisms that involve quantum effects at the molecular level. This perspective challenges traditional views and opens up new avenues for research into how extreme phenotypes develop and why they may provide a survival advantage under certain conditions. It suggests that the genetic landscape is not merely a product of classical genetics but could also be shaped by the probabilistic and interconnected nature of quantum phenomena, leading to the emergence of unique and adaptive traits in evolutionary biology.
10:19 I feel like the interviewer had a good.point at the end. The beaver's genes sculpt the landscape, and then the environmental pressures sculpt the genes. You always change that which you interact with, even when they change you more. Seems like it would cause specialized phenotypes that work well in the environment that they build.
Yup, any rational man or woman who pays enough attention in their lives knows this, yet it's crazy that it tooks biologists and ecologists so long to figure this out.
Every time brainworms are mentioned, I picture rfk.
RFK has a brain??
Where was this filmed?
Looks like The Natural History Museum in London.
It’s the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
@@guilhermeguedes3100 Thank you!
I hear laughter from heaven. The wisdom of man.......
Evolution doesn't claim to have all the answers, but it provides a robust framework for understanding the diversity of life on Earth.
Science is about asking questions and seeking evidence-based answers. It's a continuous journey of discovery!
I so sad I missed the last chance to catch him on tour. I really wanted to get a book signed ..well, all 18 woulda been really nice.
Dawkins is great
Where is that? Natural history museum?
It’s the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
@guilhermeguedes3100 fabulous!
Dawkins’ view on beavers’ dams highlights the “extended phenotype,” where genes influence not just the organism but its environment. Questions arise about how much of dam-building is genetic vs. learned, how cooperation fits into the selfish gene framework, and how such complex behaviors evolved step by step.
Oxford University Natural History Museum ?
The examples are very well-chosen, though I'm not entirely convinced by the theory itself. It seems to me that genes might select for certain cognitive processes rather than directly for specific features of the world. That said, this isn't really my area of expertise.
That’s the idea. The genes code for the behaviour that causes the results in the world.
What museum are they in?
It’s the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
Thank you!! It’s beautiful.
I like and have learned a lot listening to Richard Dawkins. I consider myself a believer but not in the classical sense. My beliefs center around exploring and explaining consciousness. I believe consciousness lives on in an evolved way in another dimension after the dimension we are currently experiencing. I am interested in a serious ongoing scientific study on the subject of consciousness. I am impressed with the theories of the Physicist Federico Fagan.
@@CharlesFiandaca , Thanks for posting the person you are impressed with; I'll check them out. I do agree with you the consciousness continues in another dimension. I have had glimpses of what that looks like. I have been assisted/helped along by humans/beings that are a LOT more experienced than I am and continue to assist me with my journey. Safe journeys.v
While there are gaps in knowledge with consciousness it's clear it's just the process of being alive and aware, essential for survival and all life has it.
Unconscious= dead game over!
There's no support for duelism in neuroscience and plenty against.
No ghost in the machine that moves on.
Does anyone know which museum this is?
Probably London Natural History Museum or Washington DC
It’s the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
Dawkins makes a logical case for evolution without considering religion or other spookiness. No, "yes, but" arguments for him. He is a knight in our secular hearts.
Nah. You're averse to everything Divine. If any such lexicon includes terms like God, spirit, soul, wisdom, faith, truth, justice, being, essence, being, etc. you call it all religious without discerning it as metaphysics or religion, just so you can throw it away and disregard it.
Criticizing something isn't wrong, only when such a critic doesn't fundamentally understand what it is that they criticize and therefore are they a detractor; he who denigrates - a most ignoble action.
But hey, where else do you have to go now. So you just go around and reify atheists so not feeling so alone.
@@codymarch164Exactly right! I couldn't have said it better myself.
They are not secular or atheistic but antireligious and antitheistic. Their religion lies in the machine which is everything in their mind. And Dawkins is their pope. Magdalena Skipper and Philip H M Campbell are their two main cardinals.
Disrespectful to the whole field of Theology, Philosophy, Metaphysics
@@fadeitluie9356 scienteeth joke or the Old Yor ba nana & tape auction 😅😂😂😂😂
I think multi regional theory is 100 percent correct.
The original meme spreader!
Cameraman is god flying around
10:31 This displays a likeness in things of difference in this very revolution and procession. All are part of this abidance and is a phenomenal form of harmony and interdependence. Thus, there is relation and communication.
Atheists will say there's only the material and everything is deterministic, therefore indirectly stating that all of phenomena is by mere chance, accident, and without reason, no purpose, but, determinism is not mere accident for there is Reason, and 'nothing in nature is vain'. How can such a person demonstrate that harmony, relation, interdependence, even of things averse, how is all this mere chance, accident or without reason.. Metaphysics principles are observable everywhere.
Theists must either believe in a grand plan, hence determinism and no free will, effectively. Or in no plan, free will, just like atheists stand, but then no all-knowing God.
"Metaphysics principles are observable everywhere."... can you explain this more clearly please..?
Fascinating. Complex manipulation behaviours. But not involving consciousness / awareness or motive?
This is more of an observation in nature than it is about its origination.
All of science is observational, and constructing predictive models from those observations.
@simonhibbs887 Yes, but what is one proof of correct prediction in evolution theory?
@@peweegangloku6428
Evolution predicted the existence of the giant hawk moth.
It predicted the existence of, and layers within which to find, Tiktaalik which is an intermediate animal between aquatic and terrestrial animals.
It predicted that humans and chimpanzees would share more ERVs than humans and gorilla and more between those to than humans and orangutans.
Between 30 and 40 million years ago, Australia and South America were connected by a continental land bridge, which is now Antarctica, to form the supercontinent known as Gondwana. Therefore, if evolution and plate tectonics are true, we ought to be able to find evidence for marsupial migration from South America to Australia via Antarctica, dating to the Eocene period when they were connected. Such fossils were then found.
There are tons, and tons of examples.
Stephen meyer must came here.
Is rechard Dawkins still alive.😮
Scientism is utterly insufficient to satisfactorily explain the mysteries of the universe. The explanatory potential of science has been vastly overexaggerated in recent decades. There's good reason to be skeptical about the overconfidence emanating from the so-called New Atheism movement, including the fact that people like Dawkins rely on metaphysical, empirically unverifiable assumptions to even engage in science in the first place.
@@Edruezzi The mysteries of the universe I referred to are precisely those that arise when we reflect on the very foundations of science itself, namely the principles we take for granted but cannot empirically verify.
Those include but are not restricted to: the belief that the laws of nature are consistent across time and space, the validity of logical reasoning, the trust in logic and mathematics as universally applicable tools for deriving truth, the assumption that the external world exists independently of our perception and is accessible through observation, the principle that events are caused by prior states, the confidence in the human mind's capacity to perceive, analyze and understand the universe accurately, even though our cognitive faculties evolved for survival, not truth. The belief that unbiased observation is possible, the preference for simpler explanations, which although pragmatic has no empirical justification as universally correct, and even the implicit ethical stance that truth is valuable and worth pursuing, which cannot be derived from empirical observation alone.
@@razadara Before I block you I will hasten to point out that none of those items you listed matter. Some traditional philosophers may say they matter but they don't. The universe is comprehensible and that's that. More modern work has shown that they don't matter. The validity of logical reasoning is today a topic that has leaped far beyond the apparently Aristotelian level you seem to be nudging toward. As science since Galileo has demonstrated, Aristotle wouldn't have understood simple rectilinear motion. The universe would work excellently if there were no humans and no scientists to study it. Most of what you listed do not constitute mysteries about the universe. Meanwhile the questions about the universe that do not matter> The ones that do matter are either the known knowns or unknown unknowns of Donald Rumsfeldian discourse or are beyond your scope.
The article will be left for some minutes for you, and presumably others, to peruse it, and then the author will proceed to delete it and apply other safeguards.
Since you seem to be well educated or at least well-read I would recommend you stop hanging around TH-cam comment sections and avail yourself of actual books and/or educational courses, so you won't be wrestling and hanging out with flat-Earthers, creationists, religious fanatics, racists, outright fools and so on.
@@razadara By the way, the "laws" of nature are consistent across time and space, or astrophysics would have been impossible and pointless. Contrary to what science fiction authors and the makers of Star Wars, Star Trek and so on would have us believe, the chemistry and physics done here on Earth are exactly those of the rest of the universe.
@@razadara Note your first sentence. You mention questions having to do with the nature of the scientific endeavor. Those are not mysteries of the universe.
@@Edruezzi Appreciate your responses, but I do find it interesting how some of your responses tend to be more about speculation on me personally rather than what I had to say. Speculating on my TH-cam browsing habits, suggesting I may end up "hanging out" with certain groups, and mentioning "blocking me" -- it's all out of place, especially considering you've started this conversation. Just to clarify, this is one of the first comments I've ever left on TH-cam, and the only reason I did so is because I'm interested in discussing ideas.
Ideas are to be weighed based on their merit, not on one's assumption about those presenting them. Shifting the focus onto perceived habits or motivations does absolutely nothing for the betterment of the discussion nor brings us closer to any semblance of truth. Let's keep the focus where it belongs: on the arguments themselves.
Now, to address more directly some of your points: Where you say, "the universe is comprehensible, and that's that" you give us a statement rather than an explanation. That the universe is intelligible does not explain why it is intelligible. That there is a uniformity of natural laws, mathematics applies, and the rational structure of reality are all contingent-- they could have been otherwise. For example, chaotic or non-intelligible universes are conceivable - and even plausible in a multiverse context some scientists propose. The real question is why the universe we inhabit is coherent, ruled by discernible laws, accessible to reason and so on. Those are not trivial or redundant concerns as you seem to suggest, they are foundational mysteries that science itself rests upon.
As for "The universe would work excellently without humans or scientists to study it" I find this assertion to be both true and irrelevant. Surely, the universe does not need human observation to function, but this misses the deeper issue of how such a universe so finely tuned to be intelligible would exist in the first place. Precisely the fact that we can comprehend it, and that mathematics falls in so beautifully with the form taken by its structure, has really enormous questions surrounding it. I absolutely agree: the universe is mathematically intelligible independently of whether people happen to study it or not, and this fact calls insistently for an explanation. Dismissal of the problem for lack of importance does nothing to the problem but attempts evasion.
Regarding the notion, which you appear to have edited out, to the effect that "alternatives have not produced knowledge" I would say that in this regard, such arguments mistake practical application for truth-seeking. Science no doubt is the superior methodology with respect to producing practical knowledge and technology, but science itself depends upon a host of metaphysical presuppositions it can by no means justify. The alternative options, such as philosophy and metaphysics, might not yield a better spaceship, but they do make a determined effort to answer some of those questions that science assumes.
In order to reject alternatives simply because they do not provide concrete "knowledge" is to misunderstand their purpose and to overlook the fact that science itself is based upon metaphysical principles which these disciplines explore.
Equally politely, I would suggest that many scientists depend on the very logical fallacies they complain about in others. For example, the statement "only science explains anything" is itself a non-empirical claim, circular in its reasoning: it assumes what it needs to prove. This illustrates another scientism bias that often slips by unremarked: the habit of overlooking its own limitations while disallowing all other sorts of valid knowledge. I hope this exchange serves to make one reflect on why the intelligibility and structure of the universe are not just a convenience for science or only the product of human thought, but something actually profound, and yes, mysterious, about the universe. The search for ultimate truth wherever it may lead is helped along by humility and sincere openness to ideas in a meritorious fashion. I wish you the best on your intellectual journey and thank you for your exchange.
That's the incoherence of Dr. Peterson's theology.
Dr. Peterson's theology revolves around something called "the logos," but according to evolutionary biology in human language, it's the language itself that is the niche.
Dr. Peterson knows that the logos can't explain how lately, so-called "creators" can be permanently reconciled with their so-called "creations."
The environment is larger than the use of language. The universe is that much larger than the "logos." However, according to Dr. Peterson's theology, the logos would have to be larger than the universe.
But the universe is larger than the logos.
Therefore, Dr. Peterson's theology is logically incoherent, as the logos is only an expression of a unique human niche available to every healthy human being.
Action travelling over distance, not "action at a distance". lol
the allele A for behavior X in organism Y resides in organism Z. And so allele A encodes a behavior in a different organism from which it found. Action at a distance is the historical term for gravity, appropriated by Dawkins here to describe one aspect of the extended phenotype
@@Myd-z7s Our mitochondria are a different organism which does way more than encode behavior in a different organism but is an integral part of the organism in which it is found. We find many similar arrangements throughout nature such as the bacteria in our digestive system I just remembered but also very many symbiotic relationships among organisms within and outside of the body's of which they are in reality an integral part. I believe we can broaden our view of these Earthly symbiotic relationships to see that it could be said that the entire Universe is a symbiotic relationship within a single organism.
Good stuff! The question then becomes: Is 'man' (as opposed to the naturally abiding aboriginal/indigenous) a parasite now, who has made lesions in his own brain via a necro-logic and neuro-toxic environment that does not cultivate health but incubates illness, and from aligning with a disabling technology that stops him moving and behaving naturally as his genes intended? The definitive host being the Earth itself which is gouged out and deformed via a parasitic 'economic' system that is of course anything but economic.
Can evolution make humans fearless in nature like lions?
This question alone betrays a complete misunderstanding of how evolutionary processes occur.
@@asyetundetermined *"This question alone betrays a complete misunderstanding of how evolutionary processes occur."*
... With _homo sapiens_ proudly perched at the very top of the biological / intellectual food chain, we have absolutely evolved to be 'fearless" of all other species. That being the case, how has Hulk-m5e mischaracterized how evolutionary processes work?
@ firstly, because in questioning whether or not this can be made to happen, it is evident that OP is not of the belief that we are currently fearless of all other species. Secondly, and far more importantly, evolution as a process does not “make” any animal do or become anything. This is assigning agency where none exists.
@asyetundetermined we are intelligent so are tenacious and brave not by power
@@asyetundetermined *"Secondly, and far more importantly, evolution as a process does not “make” any animal do or become anything. This is assigning agency where none exists."*
... An insect that evolves to have a stinger or poisonous venom has been "made" more formidable than its predecessors. That's a biological fact.
Feels more like a biology lecture rather than a philosophical or ontological discussion.
Biology is a natural philosophy too😂 And, the extended synthesis is definitely a hot topic in the philosophy of biology 😂learn more about philosophy might help.
What if every particle tends to be a biological cell, eventually?
Really? Do you claim science deals with "why" rather than "how"?
Listen to Feynman, you can't pursue why in science.
Science can let us understand how things work, but we can't pose any meaning into descriptions.
@@Phronesis1037 why?
@Phronesis1037 Quite right, but in the context of this channel, which is Closer to Truth not Closer to How Things Work, I personally watch it to hear opinions on the great "whys" of existence.
These are just few examples among millions unknown showing the marvelous creation. The Quran asks humanity to search how the creation worked out.
Miracles are make-believe from ignorance.
Nothing was created!
The Qur'an is man-made historically scientifically and morally wrong.
Let me establish the source of “Transcendental apperception”. Quran(only scripture with 100% preservation/accuracy) says:”Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology(abiogenesis) via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Limited/Imperfect Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Infinite Perfection)…
Whoever he is, he pompously is trying to bedazzle us all with complexity, just like Jordan Petersen. Whereas as Prof Dawkins is trying to simplify his point that such that even a simpleton can understand his argument.
The worst cameraman. I am trying to concentrate on the speech, but he moves his camera unnecessarily.
Great cameraman. Great aesthetic. You won't understand now. Don't see it then just listen 😊.
Atleast the start to a great aesthetic.
When science meets bullshit...
he's slacking-off again, it is very well documented that beaver succession ponds alter fish and amphibian populations, who knows? may be there were castoroides that demonstrated to Belize's ancestors the optimal way to catch fish
The real living entity can never appear in science..
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ , Never, is a very, very loooooong time. v
Thor thanks you.
tell that to an ichthyologist
Every lion is a lion brave and powerful, every goat is weak and coward but why every human is different some are brave some are coward some are weak and some strong.
Upbringing.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246, That's one conclusion/opinion. v
"If Man evolved from monkees, why are still monkees"? George Carlin.
It seems that this question was asked by a monkey.
Only monkees without tail were chosen for evolution .
@@obiwanduglobi6359 , Too funny 🤣🤣 🤣 v
“Religion is BS.”
- George Carlin
The answer to your question depends on your motive behind the question. Are you asking because you genuinely don't know the answer and would like to know? Okay, if that's the case, I will tell you:
Jesus did not come to Earth to cure physical blindness. He came to Earth to cure spiritual blindness. The atheist does not have room in his heart for God, because he thinks the world can run on its own without God. By the way, that's been The atheist attitude since the world began, and how is that working out for everyone? Every day you read in the newspaper that people are being robbed and murdered. If mankind can be moral without God, why aren't we doing so? Well, I'm waiting!
If you think you can be moral without a perfect moral being giving you the standard to live by, if you think you can follow the law of ethics without the perfect lawgiver, you are spiritually blind, even though you claim you can see. And because you claim to see, your guilt remains.
On the other hand, if you're asking your question just to pick a quarrel, then I don't have an answer for you.
When Dawkins or any defender of his creed explains to me how the ideas of Charles Darwin even ADDRESS, let alone satisfactorily ACCOUNT for the lifecycle of a butterfly, then I'll think he ́s getting us Closer To Truth.
Does Mr Dawkins know everything is energy and energy is vibrations and there's nothing vibrating? 🙄
Hey, can you clarify?
Evolution has teleology. Dicky Dawkins makes people Christian.
Disagree, Darwin didn't make me a Christian. v
Santa clause made me celebrate. But it’s Still not true. And his fabled existence doesn’t prove a thing. But happy holidays just the same
@jayk5549 , Hey, wait a minute, I am a Virginia. So, I know there's a Santa Claus and that's the TRUTH. It's just one of those mysteries. Happy holidays 2U2. v
That's a good joke, Joker.
Dawkins offended science with his attitude to the concept of truth.
Ahh, so that’s what happened to RFK Jr. lol
Evolution starts in consciousness and completes in biology.
You know that there's a belief that existence is an illusion. You may be familiar with the concept.
@@virginiatyree6705 wrong belief. Otherwise you would not be commenting here... This world is real.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 , Ok, so you're not familiar with the concept. Budism is big on the illusion of it all. v
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 , P.S.: Since, I don't know you in real life and I haven't EVER discussed that concept (nothing exists & it's all an illusion), with you, you have no idea why, or what my motivation is about why I have commented. v
@@virginiatyree6705 since this world is an illusion according to you, what is the use of discussing any subject.
So if animals build shelters, that’s proof of Evolution? Can Dawkins hear himself speak? Or am I missing something here?
He explained adaptations called extended fenotypes. Not part of the organism itself, but required by it and often done by it.
@ somewhat like humans building a fire to cook and avoid freezing to death? Extended phenotypes does not prove evolution. It doesn’t amount to anything for that matter.
@shahidmiah917 nobody says it does, but it's all in the genes. Evolution is a fact, there's nothing to prove here. The theory explains how it happens, not that it does. Just like gravity is a fact, and Einstein's theory explains it.
@@nigh7swimming gravity is a fact, evolution is not. It’s a figment of the imagination. The coded complexity of genes itself disproves Evolution. Do you understand the structure and function of genes?
@shahidmiah917 looks like your ideology blinds you so much you reject facts in order to protect your childhood beliefs. Good luck with that 😂
Darwinian evolution is proof of design, therefore there is a Designer or programmer, just like humans design and program AI and simulations .
Really? That concept "there is a designer" reminds me of all those Matrix fans think think all this experience is a computer simulation. I guess it's as good as believing there's a designer. v
You mean "theistic" evolution then right? "Darwinian" would specifically refer to natural, unguided, "godless" evolution. It doesn't matter anyway because that term is only used by creationists and I think you used it just because you're so used to hear it from Answers in Genesis
Evolution by natural selection is the designer. Hello, anyone home.
@@ShalnnDarwin's Natural Selection is an OXIMORON because "to select" is NOT natural but a Conscious Choice....
@@Paine137To design or to select is a Conscious Choice that is not what your material science define as NATURAL...
Dawkins is a scientist with credentials but he has no business discussing God. That is not his specialisation
Everyone has the right to discuss the gods we invented.
How utterly empty this purposeless, materialistic worldview is. I realize I’m conjecturing, but I can almost hear the despair in Richard’s voice.
What matters is not what makes us feel good, but what's true.
@ I agree to some extent, but I’ll say two things. First, I don’t know anyone who actually lives their life with complete disregard for their own feelings. So while reason, logic, data, etc. trump feelings in a technical sense, feelings exist nonetheless. There must be a reason for that beyond mere survival. I’d say it’s tied directly to the concept of justice and ultimately back to truth. Second, I didn’t actually say anything about feelings. I was referring to purpose… and by extension, meaning. A meaningless and purposeless existence suggests illogical and irrational reasoning.
Consider the possibility you might be missing something. Let that possibility haunt you. You'll be wiser for it, if significantly less self-satisfied. Consider also whether you understand his arguments, methods, and evidence well enough to critique its internal logic. And finally consider that contingency is not mutually exclusive from meaning. Just because his theory doesn't yield some reduction of meaning inside the processes of biology, doesn't, for example, preclude a very meaningful life studying these processes.
Dr. Richard Dawkins is right about the unhealthy and immoral nature of religions, but wrong about assuming physicalism is truth..
I've never heard him use that word. It seems like you're strawmanning conveniently.
@micahgmiranda Dr. Dawkins perceives biological phenomena through the lens of materialist reductionism (physicalism).
@@MasoudJohnAzizi Dawkins doesn't deny that consciousness comes from emergence. He avoids the metaphysical debate entirely. He's a naturalist. You're projecting your view because you believe in metaphysics.
@micahgmiranda Physicalism or materialism assumes that consciousness emerges from matter. I am currently convinced that physicalism/materialism is false due to reasons furnished by the "knowledge argument" provided by Dr. Frank Jackson.
@MasoudJohnAzizi physicalism is a monistic view. Dawkins doesn't deny pluralism, but he does deny dualism. I just watched Jeffrey Kaplan's explanation of Mary's Room, and he basically says that Jackson is strawmanning. This also ties into Vervaeke's view of the four types of knowledge, and that meaning comes from the non-propositional.
God is great,, given much freedom of human hand
There is no god as creator.
@@AshishSoham112 true, no love , no good , no evil ,
Even science doesn't exist,
Only curiosity and greed.
@@AshishSoham112even scientists have proven that we don't exist , and impossible to exist .
Materialism has been debunked.
That's why science is my religion 👍
@@AshishSoham112, 110% agree with that statement. v
@@dongshengdi773, That's a rather interesting conclusion. Glad I don't hang out with you. It seems as though you wouldn't be a very fun human. v
Mr. Dawkins shows approach evolution development make up experiences are senseless rethoric. Dawkins opinions are emperism details out. Proof out .
I love Dawkins wit but strongly argue against darwinian evolution yes micro changes but no way we are here via one source and he knows it but he is an vowed darwinian so he would never recant that despite so much recent within 30 years DNA evidence etc
what do you mean by "one source"?
Like all life has emerged from one organism.
@@Phronesis1037 that all life forms alive today descend from a common ancestor is proven by DNA analysis, isn't it?
"despite so much recent within 30 years DNA evidence etc" ... I've never seen an "etc" do so much heavy lifting.
All of biology research endorses evolution.
I am a biological evolution proponent, but my biggest problem with natural selection is the timeframe involved: *Example:* The "Hornet Moth" is a moth that has evolved to look just like a wasp. However, there must have been numerous lesser-evolved iterations that appeared before the version that looks just like a wasp. Most likely, a moth with any brightly colored dots or stripes would have been an easier target to spot and eat than the other blandly colored moths.
Unless this "Hornet Moth" experienced a *single, wasp-looking mutation,* then it doesn't make sense how all of the previous "lesser versions" led up to its wasp-like look. ... They all should have been gobbled up along the way!
BTW: Richard Dawkins is a main character in my latest cartoon!
The mutation would only have to have allowed it enough color so that the birds avoided it. A big splodge of orange (or yellow - I think for European hornets it evolved to mimick) might have been enough initially.
At first, the birds might not yet have evolved good insect distinction instincts. An arms race may have then ensued of disguise and disguise recognition between it and its predator. The predator could have at first been adverse to anything yellow, but then birds who could spot distinctions between striped and non-striped insects would have an advantage, so they would prevail, eat the plain yellow moths, so then striped moths would prevail, then birds who could distinguish them would prevail and so on and so forth until it gets refined into a hornet looking moth after 1000's upon 1000's of generations.
@@paulrussell1207 *"The mutation would only have to have allowed it enough color so that the birds avoided it. A big splodge of orange (or yellow - I think for European hornets it evolved to mimick) might have been enough initially. "*
... As pointed out in my opening comment, a random spot of color or stripe is what would make the moth more susceptible to being eaten. It wouldn't be until the moth was fully outfitted in "wasp attire" that its typical predators would leave it alone.
Why do you think a bird would avoid it because of a random colored spot?
*"At first, the birds might not yet have evolved good insect distinction instincts. An arms race may have then ensued of disguise and disguise recognition between it and its predator."*
... Again, you are assuming that all prior variations of the hornet moth would have been equally suitable at confusing predators. You are presupposing "weaknesses" in the birds' evolutionary path as an excuse for how the hornet moth was able to evolve into looking like a wasp. There is no evidence to support that birds were ill-equipped to eat insects during the evolution of the hornet moth.
*"then birds who could distinguish them would prevail and so on and so forth until it gets refined into a hornet looking moth after 1000's upon 1000's of generations."*
... Let's say I'm an African warthog that mutated to have a "fuzzy-balled, lion-like tail." Now, a bunch of hyenas appear and start attacking the sounder of hogs. That tail isn't going to deter any hyenas from attacking me nor would any of them confuse me for a lion. ... Once I've been eaten, that's the official end of that particular mutation.
That being the case, how is a single-colored spot (or stripe) on a moth going to confuse any predators when it could just as easily have made it easier to spot and eat?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC If there were no other yellow insects, then yellow might be enough to trigger "uh oh a hornet" in the bird's brain, as it is quicker to spot yellow than identify a hornet so the more adverse to yellow insects the bird was, the bigger the advantage, so as pointed out in my response it would not make it "more susceptible to being eaten".
It is simple odds, the magpie that is less often fatally stung by a hornet passes on its DNA more often. However when food gets scarce there would be a selection pressure that would mean discerning magpies gained an advantage. It is not a "weakness" in the bird, it is just such that in the initial conditions there was no advantage, in spotting the difference between a harmless yellow insect and a hornet. The bird gleaned no advantage, why would the magpie instinctively not be yellow-insect phobic if hornets were to begin with the only yellow insect?
There is mimicry in mammals in Africa, young cheetahs look like honey badgers. If the mutation is enough to deter a predator it is effective. The last part is explained by the first answer really, with all due respect it feels like you are trying not to understand it but I guess in good faith there is something you are missing. I think it is that you can't imagine that simple mutations can deter attack, at first, but animals don't go around with a handbook of species, they have to make split second decisions based on color schemes in their environment.
@@paulrussell1207 *"If there were no other yellow insects, then yellow might be enough to trigger "uh oh a hornet" in the bird's brain"*
... That's the very best you've got? Yellow wasn't present anywhere else when the moth grew a yellow spot? ... and all the other predators freaked out over it? .... Seriously? .... That's absolutely laughable!
*"There is mimicry in mammals in Africa, young cheetahs look like honey badgers."*
... Mimicry implies intent. Are you suggesting "intent" came into play when the "hornet moth" evolved to look like a wasp? It wasn't a "random mutation," but rather a "strategic reconfiguration?"
Look, it's better to simply admit that you have *no idea* (nor does any biologist) how a hornet moth managed to evolve to look just like a wasp. It doesn't fit within the natural selection template and further research is needed to resolve the issue.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Mimicry, like many words has more than one definition and is absolutely a term used in biology to describe the phenomena we are discussing, to quote from the...
Merriam Webster dictionary
Mimicry:
"a superficial (see superficial sense 2b) resemblance of one organism to another or to natural objects among which it lives that secures it a selective advantage (such as protection from predation)".
According to the Oxford dictionary:
Mimicry:
"In ecology, mimicry is when a species resembles another species to confuse a third species."
So I rest my case there on my use of the word there, I am unsure if you will now say at this point that the dictionaries are wrong. (Seems like something you might write to be fair).
You definitely reason in bad faith, by trying to strawman a pretty closed case within biology by exaggerating and saying that it requires that there was "nothing else yellow" in the environment.
I already put it correctly before but once again, it need only require that there was not a significant abundance of similarly colored insects to make it worthy for birds not to just avoid all insects of a particular color (in this case yellow), for the mutation to stick. That is just a fact. As I said, it is a closed case in evolutionary biology. You will see that even some humans who are intelligent enough to consciously know there are no harmful spiders in a certain environment will react with fear, nevertheless, to the shape and movement of a harmless house spider. So why do you think a bird is going to be flawless at recognizing a mutation on an insect when its hunting it at high speed and its life is on the line? Even if it recognized it as not-being-a-hornet just some of the time and not others, that would be enough to give the mutation the advantage, which would compound over generations.
Biologists have done plenty research on it, I am skeptical of your first claim that you accept evolution as you seem not to really understand it and seem to be trying not to understand it, but if you really do accept it and understand the basic principles, there is a book you could read to build upon the understanding, to add an understanding of mimicry in biology to your knowledge called,
"Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry"
It is written by a renowned evolutionary biologist called Graeme D. Ruxton from St Andrews University and it was published 20 years ago. I am quite sure you will know it to be totally flawed in its research (even though, until you read this comment you didn't even know mimicry was a word in biology). I am sure you will know this without reading it, by the power of your TH-cam musings, but nevertheless, in case you actually have a curious mind, I'll link to it below.
www.amazon.co.uk/Avoiding-Attack-Evolutionary-Ecology-Crypsis/dp/0198528604
A brain worm is a good way to describe the idea of God in the mind of humans, I think. And just as destructive.
...if you have no faith, you are vulnerable to evil influence to become destructive...
@@evaadam3635 uh, the religious worship Trump, who will now try to destroy America’s democracy in the process of enriching himself and his family. So I’ll stick with my atheism. At least it doesn’t lust after hate and division.
@@longcastle4863.. it is not WORSHIPPING that can save your lost soul... It is your sincere faith in a loving God that can...
... and in emptiness (hell), there is no democracy for you, unless you change now before it is too late...
Richard Dawkins is an example of a genius but stupid at the same time.
@@mkhatame86 , It happens all the time. v
Richard Dawkins is very wrong according to Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University,
SCIENCE is wrong about Religion/Spirituality. Science has not answered most of the Big questions in nature because Science has limitations to what it can do. Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, mathematician, broadcaster and author Marcus du Sautoy in his book, . He took over this position from atheist Richard Dawkins in 2008.
What are some things we can't know? 1. Could we ever know if we hit the bottom, or will we find out that it's infinitely divisible? 2. What is infinitely large? Is the universe infinite or finite? 3. What if I took a spaceship out, would I hit a wall? What's on the other side of the wall? Is there a dome we'd ultimately hit? Do we live in a simulation? (Marcus du Sautoy believes so) 4. What is consciousness? Will the machines we are currently making some day become conscious?
There are still a lot of things we do not know. It’s important that people realize there are limitations to science.
“Perhaps we need to think about more positive dialogue perhaps with science and society and issues of religion, for example, and we look for ways can share the different ways we look at the world rather than polarizing it,” du Sautoy said.
"I wonder, whether as I come to the end of my exploration at the limits of knowledge, I have changed my mind about declaring myself an atheist. With my definition of a God as the existence of things we cannot know, to declare myself an atheist would mean that I believe there is nothing that we cannot know. I don’t believe that anymore. In some sense I think I have proved that this God does exist. It’s now about exploring what quality this God has."
From atheist to agnostic believer after more than a decade of holding the position as Professor of Public Understanding of Science.
I'm neutral. Mysteries are FUN. I have my own opinions & experiences. FOREVER is an interesting concept. Life on earth is so fast and quick. All that god stuff is helpful to many humans. One needs to have some idea about what you do when one's body can't sustain life. I think being a star for billions of years might be FUN. Eventually, I'm going to find out. I'll get back to you then. Also, I'm trying to figure out how I can travel through black holes and end up at different locations in the universe. Stay in the moment, it's all we have...v
Appeal to authority fallacy, claim made by someone who have authority doesn't make the claim right.
@@virginiatyree6705 I doubt you turn into a star when you die, but oh well, we'll never truly know until we pass
Bollox Maths
How Can One Attack Lies
If The Liers
Define It As A Crime
To Tell Them They Are Lying
Bollox Maths