Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
Great stuff. Thanks for doing this.Buy,Dave McCaig itunes.
Evolutionary ladder?Top?!Did she actually talk to Dawkins or just acted her script?(I wonder if he had a say in what image would be used to explain the pinhole camera)
He left out the bit about how our eye has flaws, such as the blindspot, which would suggest a less than omnipotent designer. And there are eyes in the animal kingdom which are arguably superior to ours. Shame God decided to save the really good eyes for eagles.
The body in general has many "blindspots"...if a designer made us then ha made us too complex...have one organ failure and it all could end up very badly.
A very good explanation of how evolution works. You would have to be "blind" not to comprehend it ;)
that chick is so hot- thank "god" i've got eyes to see her lol
I demand to know who made Richard take his jacket off.
Has Richard put on weight?
"He signed my selfish gene"Im thinking that's a euphemism for something naughty, and not just a scribble in a book :)
<span>Sorry, what a rubbish. For example: Hypothesis, if I would fly with my plane looking down for a half a million years with 400,000 generations of my children born on that aeroplane (and aeroplanes build after that) to continue my quest of looking down to the earth below @ 5000 feet high. Eventually my eyes will develop in a kind of Eagle Eyes or better. Mawhahahahaha. What a crock is that ! Just hear what Richard Dawkins says: Imagine this… or Imagine that ….. yes, what an IMAGINATION he has. Again there is NO basis for the endless theories and non proof of developing something out of nothing. Scientists do not want to accept the variety of eyes that exist for thousands of years. Scientists still believe that the dust under your bed will “evolve” to be “us ” in leaving it long enough.</span>
If your looking down from 5000 feet has no selective advantage, yes, it would be unlikely that after 400,000 generations your decendents would have eagle-like eyes.But, if it does, for example: food on the airplane is dispensed to individuals only if they spot something on the ground. That would mean your children with the better eyesight would have a better chance of receiving nourishment, therefore better chance of surviving to adulthood, and therefore better chance at reproducing. Now push ahead 400,000 generations and you'll get a very high probability of getting improved eyesight in your decendents.
Poppycock, they would have died long time and being extinct, because the speed of the development of that eye will not increase faster to get the sharpness of 5000 feet below food foraging or spotting. It would never work, simply there is not enough time to develop it to get that nourishment as you are saying. Just scroll back to that 1 cell with an eye that can see only shades presumptuously. No matter how much time you spend in that plane as a cell with 1 eye will never ever develop to a intelligent being and spot things on the ground. It will be dead after a day. Do you see how silly it all is ?
<span>What's on your mind...</span>
Poppycock? Why?Was my oversimplified explanation based on your oversimplified hypothetical so easy to understand, you had to fortify your misunderstanding by changing the details? (AKA: moving the goalpost)You said you were flying your plane with your children, not an amorphic single celled sky traveller, so by your own example the travellers already have eyes capable of spotting patterns and objects from 5000 feet.What your hypotheiss was missing is slective pressure (no evolution by natural selection without selective pressure), which I added in the form of food dispensation being dependant on eyesight.('dispensation' meaning food is stored on board the plane and there's no need to look for it 5000 feet down, So "spotting something on the ground" can be anything else)It seems to me that you (and everyone else who wrestle with the principals of natural selection) forget that natural selection doesn't happen in a vacuum where everything except the discussed trait is static. You neglect to add all the "forces" comprising natural selection into your mental model of the theory. (as we can see in the above example, where you neglected the most important part)
It is expedient that I move the goal posts, that is what Mr. Richard Dawkins does all the time. He clearly says: Imagine this... or Imagine that.... The problem that arises with such an issue is that we have to imagine something that is AN IMAGINATION not what facts are or even natural selection. The time gap that Mr Dawkins is trying us to believe is that he is of "opinion" that this "might" be the case in the most ideal situation. Let me spell that out. There are hardly any ideal situations. And if there was, it would likely 1000,000:1 Even now I have to put in to the fact, that eyes are prone to be degenerating after some time in even wearing lenses, glasses or laser corrections, this also will be taken into the next generation. If you would apply this to this hypothesis you will see that time is a factor in the negative. This will also apply to the children to that effect. Also the nourishment that you were mentioning can be flawed in it's construction of for example lacking enough as simple as it may sound "vitamins" and "minerals". Or even cause disease. This can cause for example eye problems in the case of lack of vitamin A or an eyeinfection. And so you can go on and on about this until we are imagining our ideal situation as in the situation that is at hand and we are here discussion. If you are talking about "forces" that are in so called natural selection, how come that problem many a times arises that things are going on a different path than we expected or even calculated in our theses. Just even to mention your screen ID as "blue print". All things are pertainable in some point in time by blueprint if the knowledge and materials would be there to apply it. No amorphic cell has the capability to decide one time in it's short life "I will be a intelligent individual". It does not even have the capacity to do so. What I do see is survival and adaption. I cannot believe this even if someone would try to convince such a thing. The time argument does not give a scale or measure that everyone knows in every situation that you need intelligence to get things into reality with a plan and/or materials and a manufacturing process. You say that I neglected the most important part as in ??? What I put up as hypothesis would in practice not work out. Neither would the assumptions of Mr. Richard Dawkins and collegues. The assumption "In having an eye develop out of nothing is much harder to "believe"", because I don't believe the assumption that a single cell one day has the desire "Oh let's see, if I can make something that I can "see" better. This still is not happening today. If you know such a thing please point it out to me in my ignorance. Even if you had the time for it. Anything that I see is downright adaption of an environment where it abodes and not transpiring into another species. And certainly not evolving to something else to that effect.
Pardon me, I wrote "transpiring" (I did not mean passing gasses, ;) ), I meant "changing into" on a long or short term basis.
Actually, "imagine what the facts are" is exactly what Dawkins said and those facts were presented for you in this video, which would be apropriate as this is what the video is for: to show you the facts of evolution. What you are asked to imagine is the process of natural selection, which you can't perceive."Ideal" wasn't mentioned even once and wasn't discussed, "ideal" is a problem with your understanding of the theory.Natural Selection is not a plan with a goal, there's no "top" (as I mentioned in my first reply on this page) of a ladder to reach, there's only being better than your compatition.Imagine the olimpic games. (I hope you'll agree the olimpic games are a fact)What would be the ideal weightlifting capacity to win that competition?That's about as far as I got before your post became too convoluted for me, so I'll stop here and wait for your answer.
He did not show any facts as far as I could see or discover, he was using a piece of paper with purple stuff on it, bending it suggesting that if... and a UV light shining on it and later a plastic sack with water that had to represent the lens of the eye. Which is basically mimicking of what already is known as the real eye or eyes. Do you really think that a single cell or even a lower species has the even the "intelligence" to decide "I want to grow a lens in my eye one day because it can't see too well in it's environment "? It is preposterous. Is it not well known that every cell has a signature in it's structure that they still cannot explain why it is there and how it came there ? Why is that military people not growing guns and knives kind of weaponry out of their hand or arms over all the generations from the past since that is what they are constantly doing as a profession. Or people that get some kind of pencils or pens coming out of their fingers because they "decide" that it would be a good thing to have it instead in your inner pocket. It will never happen. Not even with the natural selection theory and the "forces" thereof.Let me tell you why it won't work, because it has not the capability to create something out of nothing. It only can adapt to it's environment and change slightly. I have not seen any species that can create things out of nothing. Only people who claim this are generally seen as being charlatans and by closer investigation they mostly are. Why is it that this kind of Theory is so horribly viral and yet to me it comes over as mostly speculation of what it could be. Just because Richard Dawkins has become a professor on his profession. Yet I see a man that drifts everywhere over the world and has no peace in his inner being because he feels he has a "mandate" laid upon himself to proof something "might" be so because he "studied" it so hard. Not even to mention all the people who are "running" after him. What if one day he comes to the conclusion "What if I was wrong ?" Would he be so courageous to admit to the entire world what he truly has discovered ? He would not do that because he knows how many casualties he has created with his Atheism crusade. Not even to mention the possible suicidal tendencies that some would have out of it, him losing as the "leader".Is it not so that all things that we know come from third parties that we learn and expand on and publish it as a "truth" of what "might" be true and not true. Establishing "facts" as "facts" in a civilization makes no impression on another civilization that has it's own values and worths. Unless it would supersede the other civilization and the other civilization would like to copy it's knowledge that was gathered over their history. It is likely that that civilization looks totally and completely different at a thing or a discovery than we would do. It might even so and likely cause huge distress and fear. Perhaps even extermination of...the others.So what are you actually saying with the facts ? Absolute facts, or Imagination(s) and then make it to a "fact". Many facts are superseded in the past generations and change as the former "fact" established. Then to me it is not a fact anymore. It is superseded by something else. Like making a steel/iron that is a different steel or iron that was made by the Romans etc. etc. Or having lead taps which cause led poisoning. We don't do such thing anymore. We do things different and make it better with different processes and ingredients and so we alter the facts as we go along in each generation. Are you telling me that animals, insects, apes, etc. etc do the same ? Are they building things as we do as intelligent beings and progress in it ? So far as I know, they [...]
<p>The same for Olympic games: </p><p> </p><p>Better than the competition ? As far as I can see only mankind is working highspeed at being better than the competition. I don't see any animal, bird or insect trying to be competitive with another. They don't hold running a contest, or or fly to be the highest in the sky or even dive the deepest with each other. It rather comes over as play rather than contest. The least thing they do is try to impress another, but this has only to do with the fact that they want to multiply or being the leader or protecting their species not another species. I certainly cannot see why they want to transcend in another species for the sake of so called natural selection and it's "imaginary forces". Natural selection is just like a buzz word like "year two thousand bug" Y2K, but when it all passes it dissolves not evolves into something else. 9/11 or Credit Crunch, Financial Crisis, Recession and more. Nothing has evolved there. It only got a bigger mess overall.</p><p> </p><p>Something that only human kind can be proud of. You won't see any other species of the claimed "cousins" try to rule the world by trying to "evolve" again as is assumed. As if it by the word "natural selection" would stop in any other species. It is just for me hilarious to see that something can become so convoluted by it's own following and rather does not give any solution for anything that we as mankind facing. It is and stays a mess without the input of a supernatural being that I connect with.</p><p> </p><p>My own experience is that if I disconnect from that being I start to become erratic and start to follow people that only have knowledge that will not last over 400,000 generations. It will be superseded with some other "theories" and "assumptions" they proclaim. Surely breaking a piece of spaghetti in two pieces to proof that it would break in those 2 pieces can't hardly be entertaining as evidence and facts. I really don't care why. So there are millions of other things in science. Not that I am against science but well, umm is it not so that the more certain science we do the more problems we face and the more we still don't know how to resolve the third world with 26,000 people dying every day.</p><p> </p><p>Are you saying that we are "competing" there too ? So that the weakest "species" of humanity and especially the African race is going under into ? Because we know Science ? Why is it that we can't provide for them with our incredible high intelligence and why we hardly even do it, as it is still a drop on a hot plate even if we reach in 2010. Everywhere there are enormous nature disasters and catastrophic problems created with our science and disicions that we hardly can contain them all over the world and that in our race to control every environment to our bidding. Is there any use for a "species" to "evolve" for this benefit ?</p><p>Surely there are beautiful things to see every where and in cultures but it is clear that we basically destroying our environment everywhere slowly but surely. Will we be able to "Adapt" to our disastrous way of doings? Surely we see magnificent things discovered for out benefit and use. Yet still we have become slaves to all these things and cannot live a normal life anymore without them. Not even to mention to have a whole day of silence around us without the blaring of music, black berry cricknecks, E-mail, games, TV, Radio and the like. Or even be here online with a blog. Haha. Ok I have to stop here, ttyl.</p>
K J, try reading what you wrote before posting and trimming it to deliver a more concise point.We started on a specifict topic, you went slightly overboard with a reply, and now that I've tried to focus the issue with a simple question, you've gone in all directions but the one we've started on.I understand you're having trouble grasping the process of natural selection and I'm willing to spend the time here and explain it to you, but we'll get nowhere if you'll go on a novel sized rant when I ask if you understand a single concept.
Blue Print, apparently it is so that you would like to concentrate on your chewtoy "natural selection". It's a Theory right ? Something like "Relativity Theory" or "Theory of Everything". Yes ? How would you ever be capable of proving anything or something without proving something as a fact what you see as a "fact". I do not have a 100 million years of time to my disposal to see a assumed transition from one species to another and if you are so keen to explain it, then go ahead and see if you can convince me. Is this short enough for you ?
Then you DO understand. That's great. Now watch the video again and think about what you wrote when you hear Dawkins say "imagine", think about that you "<span>do not have a 100 million years of time at your disposal". (you also have to imagine that organisms breed and the offsprings are different than their parents, but I hope that won't be too taxing)</span>Natural Selection is what you are having trouble grasping, the theory that explains the facts of evolution presented to you in the video. Or are you claiming the animals shown do not have different types of eyes?
@ Blue Print,I believe "100 million years" is an imagination. One cannot even grasp for one second what this actually means except by numbers and just saying it for the heck of it. We as humans have absolute no idea or comprehension what such amount of "time" that really is. But then again if you are a professor in some profession you can always claim something to the benefit of the doubt.And are you "claiming" that those different eyes were coming to pass due to "natural selection" ? How come there is no transition in any of them to see anywhere or nowhere in the video. We just say it and then we can try to convince another by the weightiness of our assumption.The variation and diversion of animals, apes, insects, etc. is so huge and yet still I cannot believe that they are related to each other because of "natural selection". I could even see that we would not have enough time in total even if the world and it's universe would be 13.5 billion years. The variety of species is so vast and not even to mention that many have not even been discovered are in the millions, perhaps even billions. It just does not add up.Except ofcourse the sawed off "100+ or more million years time frame" that is used as an excuse for this. Did you know that the measurements of 13.5 billion years is a HUMAN calculation and is only existing in a HUMAN numeric application and nowhere else in the universe when you would stand on another planet if this would be the same observation from that angle. Unfortunately mankind loves to make laws, calculations, facts, then impose this on the next generation so they can make a business and above all money out of it. The love of money is the root of all evil. Money on it-selves is not bad, but the greed for it is. While everything was and is for free, we think in our closed up minds we "own" everything by using the worst unfair system that was ever created in this world for only those that have an enormous amount of knowledge to their disposal and can master and work with it. The rest lives in poverty, oblivion and confusion. Anyone who disagrees with this cannot see it because they are in it.About the 100 million year argument. Remember this: NO ONE WAS THERE TO OBSERVE IT ! Not you, not me, not anyone else. All that was observed in one's life time was ADAPTION, No Evolution. I believe it is a lie ! A lie that is actually designed to destroy us eventually. We made the words in all the generations, we made the laws in our language or dialects. We adopt it in our knowledge and in our books. It stands by our observation, application and recording. We make it to a "fact" or "facts". If you really look at it, you will see it is totally and utterly meaningless. Meaningless as in the endless cycle of the variation on a theme. It's a system and on that system we expand, subtract, divide, add, we rule and take direction. And in a bad way we use it to make us slaves to it. A true spiritual encounter shatters everything that is written and destroys it because it is as a wind, a real power and a true force, a "wind" that has it's own will and decides to interact with mankind to change the course of it's path.It's breathing. Not natural breathing, but interaction with your spirit and makes everything that is the soulish "architect" of today look very bland. It is you and I in that consciousness and that consciousness of that presence that is larger than the end of the Universe. It even goes beyond it. Pity that 99.9 % does not understand it nor even want to look for it. When you do look for it you will see it is all in ALL. A way higher level of living your live. Way more interesting than "natural selection". One encounter with such presence and engagement when you are [...]
<p>One encounter makes "Natural selection" boring, old and trite and very likely useless because it is just a manmade observation. What is the point of explaining something by word, media and interaction of knowledge by an encounter. Why does Mr. Richard Dawkins never try to surrender to such an encounter. Why is this man always looking for an answer. Instead of truly reaching out, there is ridicule, bashing, tearing down, name calling and militant confrontation. To me it comes over like watching a volcano, reason about why it does like that and yet we are incapable to change it's way of doings. I feel it is a waste of time. I believe that if there is just a small one moment in "time" for that true spiritual encounter everything else becomes just really boring, useless and waste. Yet we spent a lifetime in searching for an excuse why we are here and what we must impose and many a times to the detriment of others in the end ? Including we try the hardest to convince someone of what we have discovered. Look what it has caused already. Division, fighting, ridicule, arguments, and facing off another.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Why is Mr. Richard Dawkins here ? To make a name ? To supersede others who can't level with him (I guess he might think that in occasions) ? To quote millions of quotes from others to make a point as many a time he does ? Bombarding us with his stick-horse "natural selection, selfish gene and god delusion" ? As far as I can see and experience about Mr. Richard Dawkins, his colleagues and followers want to make history with one or another theory or establishing a fact for another time or future time and events. Making mankind even more divided of what now the really the purpose of mankind is.</p><p> </p><p>By all means do that. We can see the results. Just to let you know I won't participate in it although I am writing here something that is for those who want to find out if there is more than just a dusty book with knowledge written in it.. One thing Mr. Richard Dawkins, his colleagues and followers forget is that whenever it could be that he could be wrong in the environment that he "moves" in it will only destroy any probability or possibility for such encounter to take place ever or even a consolidation within mankind. The only thing that keeps coming up in me is that Mr. Richard Dawkins wants to be God himself and dictate everything to anyone who is willing to listen and run with it as the only facts that are.</p><p> </p><p>In the "moment" that such encounter could take place the acquired aggressive reasoning and knowledge that is stacked up in their amount of knowledge extraordinaire and extreme (one can argue whether it is any knowledge at all) they use it to outrank another and it is nastily fired and even doing it's best to bury everyone and everything instead of even standing still for a moment in time, what could be the most beautiful ways and situations ever what a humanbeing could engage in.</p><p> </p><p>An spiritual encounter could never take place when someone would be protecting themselves with steel plates and castles of reason or even arguments and huge amounts of knowledge some have acquired. One has to ask if all that knowledge and reason would be taken away in a single second or moment in time. How much FEAR would there be in such person on not been able to lean on something that is only manmade and by argument.</p><p> </p><p>True recognition of self would be to surrender it all and ask truly and sincerely for an encounter instead of building bunkers around us to operate from. One will never be the [...]
K J, One again I find a crucial point that makes me ignore the rest of your post, which could become a pointless read depending your your clarification of it.You think planet Earth does not have 100 million years of past existence? (and far more by modern measurements)
Fine if you don't want to read it and get better informed what I stand for, is your loss not mine. On your second remark. Does it really matter how old the earth and what advantage do I have with it to know ? Does it get me a better salary or can I join the group of intellectuals that love to be on the frontpage of every magazine and BBC programs ? Neither of them I aspire and I have got better things to do than to live in the past and I cannot change the past anyways. My past is over. It might be nice to read about it but then after that it is time to move on and leave it all behind.
If you are only looking for the needles that YOU are interested into because it fits in your theoretical convictions and stance that are crunching upon. Then there is no reason to write here at all. You are only geared to see your own things that are ringing bells with you. The rest you discard because I think you have no capacity in your brain to grasp it. It is easy willingly to discard something that you have not experienced yourself. It's a bit like the blindspot. The angle that you are looking at things are the only the things that you can see from the angle you are standing. When it comes to supernatural revelation the "blindspot" comes into action and removes anything else that might be evidence in another persons life and is real for them. What is also clear people who want to be atheist forget one thing, they have not been everywhere and all over in the Universe nor do they have the full picture and the completions of the puzzle from the point they are standing. Nor have they been able go to all existing and undiscovered dimensions that are there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
<span>If you are only looking for the needles and bits in the haystack that YOU are interested into because it fits in your theoretical convictions and stance that you are crunching upon in daily life. Then there is no reason to write here at all. You are only geared to see your own things that are ringing bells with you and perhaps what others stating with their "Oooh and Ahhhh, Insteresting" !. The rest you discard because I think you have no capacity in your brain to grasp it unfortunately. It is easy willingly to discard something that you have not experienced yourself. It's a bit like the blindspot. The angle that you are looking at things are the only the things that you can "see" from the angle you are standing. When it comes to supernatural revelation you could encounter the "blindspot" comes into action and removes anything else that might be evidence in another persons life and is real for them. What is also clear people who want to be atheist forget one thing, they have not been everywhere and all over the Universe nor do they have the full picture and the completions of the puzzle from the point they are standing. Nor have they been able to go to all existing and undiscovered dimensions that are there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension The day that Richard Dawkins, Friends and colleagues and followers have been there. They can come and tell us what they have discovered. Until then it is a endless perpetual continuation of a boring subject of what they are standing for. No offense intended.</span>
<span><span><p><span>If you are only looking for the needles and bits in the haystack that YOU are interested into because it fits in your theoretical convictions and stance that you are crunching upon in daily life. Then there is no reason to write here at all. You are only geared to see your own things that are ringing bells with you and perhaps what others stating with their "Oooh and Ahhhh, Insteresting" !. The rest you discard because I think you have no capacity in your brain to grasp it unfortunately. It is easy willingly to discard something that you have not experienced yourself. It's a bit like the blindspot. The angle that you are looking at things are the only the things that you can "see" from the angle you are standing. When it comes to supernatural revelation and personal encounter you could say that the "blindspot" comes into action and removes anything else that might be of evidence and experience in another persons life and is very real for them. You can only testify about things if you have experienced yourself. I am not referring to charlatans in that field or quacks, which can all for my part apply to James Randi's website. What is also clear people who want to be atheist forget one thing, they have not been everywhere and all over the Universe nor do they have the full picture and the completions of the puzzle from the point they are standing. Nor have they been able to go to all existing and undiscovered dimensions that are there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension The day that Mr. Richard Dawkins, Friends and colleagues and followers have been there. They can come and tell us what they have discovered. Until then it is a endless perpetual continuation of a boring subject of what they are standing for. No offense intended.</span></p></span></span>
<span><span>If you are only looking for the needles and bits in the haystack that YOU are interested into because it fits in your theoretical convictions and stance that you are crunching upon in daily life. Then there is no reason to write here at all. You are only geared to see your own things that are ringing bells with you and perhaps what others stating with their "Oooh and Ahhhh, Insteresting" !. The rest you discard because I think you have no capacity in your brain to grasp it unfortunately. It is easy willingly to discard something that you have not experienced yourself. It's a bit like the blindspot. The angle that you are looking at things are the only the things that you can "see" from the angle you are standing. When it comes to supernatural revelation and personal encounter you could say that the "blindspot" comes into action and removes anything else that might be of evidence and experience in another persons life and is very real for them. You can only testify about things if you have experienced yourself. I am not referring to charlatans in that field or quacks, which can all for my part apply to James Randi's website. What is also clear people who want to be atheist forget one thing, they have not been everywhere and all over the Universe nor do they have the full picture and the completions of the puzzle from the point they are standing. Nor have they been able to go to all existing and undiscovered dimensions that are there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory The day that Mr. Richard Dawkins, Friends and colleagues and followers have been there. They can come and tell us what they have discovered. Until then it is a endless perpetual continuation of a boring subject of what they are standing for. No offense intended.</span> </span>
No, it doesn't matter a thing for your daily life (may have a slight impact on the social aspect of them, though) but it does matter for your understanding of Evolution by Natural Selection, because it seems to me that you don't accept the concluded date of over 4.5 billion years of Earth, and that makes you unwilling to entertain the option of a large time scale in which the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection can have it's effect.But forget the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, if you don't accept the Earth is Billions of years old, you don't accept Nuclear Theory and that means you're in serious denial of reality, which makes any further discussion about evolution pointless.
By negotiating with all the lender it's possible to boost the discount points and decrease the total interest rate and one time also make advantage of almost zero origination fees payday loans no credit check if my credit standing is 655 of course, if apply to get a wamu plastic card simply how much can they deliver as a start.