A conversation with Richard Dawkins (3/12)
Uploaded by: PiroNiro
Video Description:
Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby sit down for a 40 minute conversation at Eden Court Theater. There, they talk about evolution, religion and the importance of science. This is followed by a question and answer session with the audience.
Credit:
UHI Millenium Institute
April 2 2008
http://www.library.uhi.ac.uk/dawkins/
For other material like this, please visit Richarddawkins.net:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/
Tags for this video: Atheism Atheist Christianity Dawkins Delusion Evolution God Islam Kirby Paula Religion Richard Science
Find more videos in the "Education" category
See more videos uploaded by PiroNiro
| A conversation with Richard Dawkins (4/12) | A conversation with Richard Dawkins (5/12) | Richard Dawkins - Channel 4 with Paula Kirby Part 1 |
 |  |  |
| A conversation with Richard Dawkins (6/12) | A conversation with Richard Dawkins (7/12) | Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby (3 12) |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
however, youth lacks wisdom. when you get older hooya, and you start to get out into the world and realize that we don't really understand anything.
Maybe you won't be such an easy target, but for now.
You're too easy Hooya!
Actually, all of the early Cambrian species had extremely simple bone joints--nothing but cracked bones with muscles to move them. Certainly, none of them had the complex rotating joints found in modern animals, or the multi-piece wrist bones of modern animals.
Most complex multi-cellular structures emerged gradually, over the millions of years following the Cambrian explosion.
You're too ignorant mejc.
sorry hooya that wasn't nice.
1. You are ignorant about Cambrian fauna (partly because you are, partly because I'm tired of your condescending "too easy" remarks).
2. Beneficial mutations accumulate incredibly rapidly in bacteria.
3. All multicellular life is more or less built with the same pieces, but with the pieces interacting in greater complexity as time goes on.
4. The diversity of Cambrian life does not equate with complexity, and in fact Cambrian multicellular life was relatively simple.
One mutation? You really don't understand evolution...
A mutation to harden some cells first--perhaps as defense, or simply a way of remaining upright? Mutation allowing spread of the hardened cells through the organism, mutation forming muscles around the bone, allowing for slight flexing, mutation of segmentation allowing for more flex...
You seem some what intelligent or I wouldn't even be responding to you.
This is a serious question.
Mathematically speaking, at what point is something so improbable that it's probability is really zero.
That is where I really believe we are with mutations causing the diversity we see.
If you told me there was one spectacularly improbable mutation that caused x...ok, maybe, But millions of them? In only five million years? I don't agree
It depends on the number of repetitions. Obviously, if you flip a coin 50 times, the chance of them being all heads is vanishingly small. However, if you flip the coin 10^50 times, the chance of getting 50 heads in a row increases dramatically.
"That is where I really believe we are with mutations causing the diversity we see." Well obviously I disagree =).
Why do you say millions? If already shown that a simple skeletal structure could be developed with only a couple hundred* at most, by small, gradual steps.
*assuming that appropriate muscle placement and fracturing, and nerve attachments, take hundreds of tiny changes*
What is the average reproduction time of a fish? One year? So when we're talking about 5 million years, we're talking about 5 million generations of fish. Keep in mind that each generation is itself made of perhaps millions of fish.
Is it really at all surprising that thousands of variations of fish (although all jaw-less and most gill-less) could arise in a virtually uncontested environment in 5 million years?
No eyes or system for an eye to complex visual systems. No bones to bones. No limbs to limbs. A sexual reprodution to sexual. The array of questions thus coincidences is vast and immense. by what mechanism does the new information arise. selection cannot create things only change them. there are limits to selection. Hence mutations are needed but at what point do we just say, Oh come on there is no evidence for the story we are telling.
"No bones to bones." I've already explained 3 times the simplicity of bones.
"A sexual [sic] reprodution to sexual." Splitting genes and duplicating them compared to splitting genes and exchanging them? That is not a big difference.
I would agree to this premise if the Cambrian animals were as complex as modern animals, with some of the complex joints and interlocking internal systems, but they're not. These critters were, relative to modern life, incredibly simple.
c ya Hooya.
I wonder if you have any other arguments--ones that are actually FACT BASED. I've already pointed out dozens of times how simple they really were...
I wonder if evolution could explain vampires and Slayers, if they existed. ;)