2017 Paul D. Bartlett, Sr. Lecture - What Darwin Didn't Know: Evolution Since the Origin of Species

April 6, 2017, in the Main Reading Room of the Linda Hall Library
15th Annual Paul D. Bartlett, Sr. Lecture presented in association with the Harvard-Radcliffe Club of Kansas City, the Princeton Alumni Association of Greater Kansas City, and the Yale Club of Kansas City.
Andrew Berry, Assistant Head Tutor in Integrative Biology and Lecturer on Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, reviews the essence of Darwin’s ideas while taking excursions into some of the most exciting post-Darwin discoveries. In particular, he focuses on human evolution, an area in which our knowledge has recently expanded massively with fossil discoveries and the application of modern genetics to both ourselves and, remarkably, to our extinct relatives, the Neanderthals.

[@kp6215]

I could listen to this lecture for an entire weekend to give my brain the endorphins that gives me pleasure that I require every week because learning gives more pleasure than anything!

[@Uenbg]

Another way of describing that would be that listening to this lecture 'tickles your ears'.

[@julias-shed]

Many thanks for making this available on KZbin. Really interesting 😀

[@philgallagher1]

In Manchester, England, you know that it is going to rain if you look out and can see the mountains in the distance. If you can't see the mountains.... It's already raining!! (From a Scouser who enjoys laughing at Manchester!!) By the way, a fascinating lecture throwing light on a very complex subject! Thank you for sharing!!

[@nathanokun8801]

FANTASTIC talk!! THIS is how a GREAT teacher teaches his students!. I only had one pro0fessor (of differential equations, of all things) who was of this caliber at UCLA. Others were good, but great is much better than goo0d!

[@online6348]

This should be 3 hours, he was right. I really enjoyed learning about all of this, even if joy wasnt the purpose of this, it still was.

[@suzbone]

7:20 "HA! Stupid zebra!" I guffawed 😂😂😂 Can't wait to watch the rest, and really wish it was three hours long!

[@philgallagher1]

Two men on safari see a lion. One man starts putting on running shoes. His friend says "You'll never outrun a lion". He responds "I only need to outrun YOU!!" BA-DUM-TSSSHH

[@redwatch.]

One of the best lectures I've heard. He's witty and great at formulating understandable jargon free answers.

[@Sebastian-hg3xc]

Thanks for sharing. I really enjoyed this lecture. Would be great if you could name the speaker in the description so I can look for more. If anyone else is looking for his name: They show in in the very beginning: Andrew Berry, Lecturer on Organismic & Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University.

[@maryjones8741]

Thanks a bunch.

[@paulspence7600]

He is named in the description - last bullet point.

[@T-aka-T]

I thought this might be a good sleep aid when I woke up at 3am. Silly me. It was riveting. 😏 Wide awake thereafter. Fabulous. 🥳 Thank you. The writ's in the mail.

[@wvhollargirl7549]

I NEED MORE of this man and this subject! 3 hours wouldn't be enough. Thank you.

[@robertdavenport7802]

Interesting to see cellular automata popping up in a lecture on evolutionary biology.

[@jimvj5897]

Can anyone recommend a source to learn about the shuffling/inheritance he talks about starting at 42:22?

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

I can tell you that he and James Watson published a book in 2003 called "DNA: The Secret of Life." I can't absolutely guarantee that they talk about genetics in that book, but I'm guessing they do.

[@joannad5374]

29:49 It was largely because his beloved wife was a staunch religious believer

[@kp6215]

Correct about his wife

[@edwardhamm5535]

Wonderfully film segment with great ape dancing and holding hands.......❤

[@tommybildstrom6768]

Love this channel

[@jamesharvison5535]

Great lecture.

[@johnhopkins6658]

Interesting lecture.

[@panafricandesignsandapparel]

I have to say you explained this so beautifully...thank you for this presentation!!! ( 33:22 Hominid Evolution ct 7 mya ) ( 37:50 what happened when Africans meet Neanderthals ct 70,000 ya) ( 39:48 Genetic analyses ct 30,000 ya ) ( 52:00 question and answer period )

[@dhargyal2012]

As I wrote long ago : "About gene and evolution(as defined by small changes(due to natural selection propagated via a mechanism of hereditary transfer (which is genes as we understands it in biology today)) ultimately leading to a new offspring that is different from the original parent); here is my question. As I understand it, genes are on the chromosomes as base pairs (some may be determined by complex relation between base pairs on many chromosomes but there are there on the chromosomes). This means that there are only a finite number of individuals possible. Then now suppose in a thought experiment (Gedanken), we produced all the individuals that a given totality of gene of a given species allows, then now if any two among that sample is combined to produce an offspring (allowed by the rules of the mechanism of hereditary transfer(DNA replication )), but that offspring should be already there in the old sample; so where is evolution? To me it seems that this genetic mechanism forfeits a global evolution; that is to say, this genetic algorithm (mechanism of DNA replication) does not allows a global evolution in a sense that if that mechanism is carried out in perfect precision THEN A GIVEN SPECIES IS A CLOSED SYSTEM, so it can not give rise to a new species as above Gedanken experiment shows. In a perfectly DNA replicating system, evolution can be looked as a local apparent change due to our not seeing the whole assemble of all possible allowed individuals by the whole gene of the species simultaneously."So the only way a new species can arise from an old one is via the inperfections in the hereditary transfer mechanism which is in line with Lamark's idea as pointed out in this discussion.. see link below for my original facebook post facebook.com/dhargyal007/posts/pfbid02v3LM6kHN9auGZJTSrfZM5EC7RxduBe5TYKhUsxV2rEUBL6xEr138Up4XRf82b5mfl

[@nathanokun8801]

The argument about carbon-based life in a competition with alternatives like silicon on worlds with vaguely similar conditions to earth is probably true. BUT, if a world has no carbon or very little, then any other material that has a chance , such as silicon, has a chance to substitute, however difficult it might be. There are also planets or other places (?) where electromagnetic effects might allow complexity (like the crystals in crystal radios and somewhat similar later solid-state devices). Living solid-state parallel-processing computing machines, in effect, with bodies using electric and/or magnetic machinery. Totally different, but there was nothing to get in the way like our form of life.

[@igorjee]

Due to its smaller atomic mass and size, carbon is not only more ubiquitous in the Universe, but it is also more versatile than silicon.

[@igorjee]

For something to diversify the information-storing structure should allow endless non-repeating variation. Crystals are repeating patterns and therefore not a suitable substrate for evolution.

[@nathanokun8801]

@@igorjee Crystalline and non-crystalline patterns only have to be created once where they can begin to duplicate themselves in fractal-based non-repeating sequences to become the basic underpinning of life. No matter how improbable, this is a BIG universe...

[@nathanokun8801]

@@igorjee There are NO places where carbon might be filtered out of the environment by some chemical, mechanical, or metallurgical process? I do not think that is true.

[@paulspence7600]

Very nice. I've been lecturing and talking about this for decades. This micoevolution is OK but no macroevolution thing creationists go on about has been blown away by developmental biology and the genetics that drive it. Also, nice to see that Andrew Berry is an aluminus of my university.

[@kakhaval]

I was expecting randomness could have ended up creating internet, easier than an ant...

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

Delightful.

[@cibulskia]

Theory of evolution is the best we have, even if it ends like majority of science theories from past, for now, it is all we have that makes any sense.

[@vmitchinson]

60 years ago I was working north of the Artic circle. I met a family with a white father and an Intuit mother. They had 8 kids, two looked all white, two looked Intuit and four looked mixed.

[@raysalmon6566]

DNA pretty much knocked evolution off the saddle

[@marthawolfsen5809]

what does this mean? DNA is the stuff that evolves.

[@walkergarya]

No liar it did not.

[@online6348]

Can you put subtitles please

[@T-aka-T]

That function is under YOUR control. Just tap the screen and you'll see a little "settings" wheel. Tap it, and when the menu pops up, select English and the option "turn captions off" will be de-selected. Voila! You made captions. 😊

[@online6348]

@@T-aka-T thank you but I know about that function and when I wrote my comment that function was disabled.

[@online6348]

@@T-aka-T glad to see that they added them now

[@T-aka-T]

@@online6348 Good - it was working for me. Glad you got it back. Cheers.

[@DominicRyanOsborne]

That's such a perfect question and was it inspired by the talk. Anyway. Yes. How many species or examples of crabs are there.. Universally.. Given the, yes, ubiquity of worlds where at least a handful could be at least as marvelous as earth.. Or even better. The universal physics and chemistry and biology but not necessarily the same cake recipe of ingredients or mixers of planetary orbit, plate tectonics, atmosphere, magnetosphere etc. We don't express much of the same characteristics as crabs, we know of no crab hyperintelligence, but we probably share enough crab DNA to assume a similar lineage may exist somewhere. An offshoot question would be we don't know how many other humanoid and intelligent creatures have existed gets who've expressed biologies that would leave anything in the fossil or genetic record. Do we have ways of detecting some of those lost branches through only the living genetic record. Can we use that record totaled up to generate a prefect earthling. And once certain genetic complexity is reached in a given lineage does it become impossible to achieve certain adaptations.

[@whirledpeas3477]

Who is Linda Hall ?

[@LindaHallLibrary]

The Linda Hall Library is an independent library of science, engineering, and technology in Kansas City, Missouri. You can read more here! www.lindahall.org/about/our-story

[@whirledpeas3477]

@@LindaHallLibrary Thanks

[@gunnarguggs2725]

I wonder if subconsciously as a lecturer he tries to sound a bit like Bertie Wooster.

[@Leonel53795]

top conference!

[@NordaVinci]

Duh . . . What if there are non-material causes that account for it? [1:04:014]

[@igorjee]

The non-material can't affect the material since they have no overlapping modes of interaction.

[@NordaVinci]

@@igorjee What if every particle is half spiritual and half physical. See the theory of "Complex Relativity" by Jean Charon.

[@igorjee]

@@NordaVinci How do the two halves interact?

[@joannad5374]

Of course, we had to have at least one creationist intervention from the audience

[@johnsims6702]

Where's subhutti

[@mavrosyvannah]

I am the master and the first and only human to know life and how to create life. The gnome is the effect, not the cause. See you in 200 when you catch up to the QNav of the conscious universe as understood by my model, the UFU.

[@wailinburnin]

“Black is beautiful.” That was a slogan of the civil rights era that is actually a scientific statement of truth, This lecture did not go into how choice of mates becomes part of natural selection such that traits like skin, hair, and eye color, features of the face, etc. become favored over time in different locales. We, all of our types, (notice, “race” is not used in this lecture because it doesn’t exist in the scientific language anymore, it’s been debunked) are beautiful people.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

21:37 Dogs didn't descend from wolves. Wolves and the different breeds of dogs were separately created.

[@LiveFreeOrDie2A]

Are you retarded?

[@spatrk6634]

@@LiveFreeOrDie2A yes he is

[@tnekkc]

Evolution of skin color is fast and adapts to new latitudes. Evolution is slow metabolically, and has not adapted from eating meat to eating grain. We get obesity, high blood pressure, tooth decay, cancer, heart disease, and mental illness.

[@danielmccarthyy]

You are not allowed to say that unless you have a PhD in Nitrition and an MD with a fellowship in Lipidology.

[@sigishere]

Like Dawkins said , there is no good or bad in this material world.

[@zach2980]

Please contact Seth Andrews from TTA next time you record such lectures as these. These are too important not to be well recorded. Thx regardless.

[@richardlynch1094]

"Darwin is still HOT AS HELL"! Indeed!

[@johaquila]

Wonderfully entertaining presentation, and I even learned one or two new things.

[@jbcarr59]

The argument for speciation (isolated populations) is absurd.

[@Sebastian-hg3xc]

Thanks for your personal opinion. Very valuable. 🙂

[@johnthomas8731]

entertaining

[@johnhopkins6658]

I was waiting for someone to bring up God (intelegent designer)

[@Mdebacle]

According to the Molecular Clock theory, humans and chimpanzees are diverting at the rate of 5 nucleotide bases per year. This means going back in time human genes should be closer to chimpanzees at the rate of 2.5 bases per year, i.e. Pharaoh's mummy should be 7500 bases closer to a chimpanzee. Anyone can realize this is not a reasonable theory.

[@wooddoc5956]

Actually our genomes vary by 50 to 90 nucleotides per generation. So you're trying to tell me I shouldn't look like my ancestors? Are you the one that says I believe you can walk but you can't walk a mile given enough time? Only God can do that?

[@Mdebacle]

@@wooddoc5956 We inherited 46 chromosomes from the first two ancestors with 46 chromosomes. The 50 to 90 nucleotides per generation are genetic entropy. Not familiar with the "walk a mile" quote.

[@wooddoc5956]

@@Mdebacle let's say differ from chimps DNA by 2 percent. That would be 60 million out of 3 billion. Why are you so upset about 7500 being so unbelievable?

[@davedillon1372]

The little fish is eaten by the big fish °>🐟>🦈. Case closed!

[@richardkennedy8481]

Darwin was a life long Christian.

[@wooddoc5956]

Not really. It's easy to find that information on line.

[@StressRUs]

As you chose not to publish my comment, you have been deleted. Stress R Us

[@fredm.7145]

Now that they discovered that we're part Neanderthal we suddenly find Neanderthals were smart, well dressed, educated, handsome, artistic... Really?

[@hamrite]

And your thoughts today are ... ?

[@fredm.7145]

@@hamrite Evidently my thoughts are wasted on you.

[@PablumMcDump]

​@@fredm.7145 "Evidently" your thoughts are simply wasted.

[@flashgordon6670]

Charles Darwin didn’t know that small gradual adaptations, don’t accumulate for transformations, between the Chromosome Family Kinds. Adaptations within existing Genomes, are already programmed for variety, within the Chromosome Family Kinds. Mutations means losing varieties, it doesn’t create new varieties. It’s a degenerative and destructive process, not creative. Natural Selection means in certain circumstances, certain varieties prosper, while others flounder. Long hair on cold climates and short hair in hot climates as obvious examples. Circumstances change and migrate, so the prosperous Species migrate and change. But they return to previous sets of circumstances, as they’re revolving back to previous arrangements. Summer turns to Winter and Winter turns to Summer. Everything revolves around the circuits of Nature. So nothing can arise from nothing, Evolution. Or degenerate to nothing, Devolution. Everything gets recycled and reformed into preexisting forms.

[@micsca]

Cells possess intricate molecular machinery discovered by microbiologists which has dramatically challenged Darwinism, and evolutionists have had no success at explaining it. During Darwin's time, cells were considered to be relatively simple structures, primarily composed of a protoplasmic substance enclosed by a cell membrane. Darwin's ideas about evolution and natural selection were based on this simplistic understanding of cellular biology. This guy completely fails to mention anything that is current that challenged Darwin's ideas, and there are plenty of examples which are unresolved with Darwin's ideas.

[@hamrite]

In a French encyclopedia dating from the beginning of the 20th century, a simple sea organisme such as a clam had its inside described as : "sorte de bouillie" , meaning "sort of like porridge". They hadn't searched much further and religion forbid many to question other than "a things exist thanks to creation". Now describing the invisible makes it harder to demonstrate the evolution which is all a collection of accidents since 4 billion years back ... until mankind started crossbreeding species for its only purpose, without "God's consent". The exposé such as above is nevertheless an excellent description of the surprises of evolution.

[@AdrieKooijman]

Darwin had no clue about DNA and the molecular machinery in cells. He figured out ideas about evolution 'the survival of the fittest' (fittest as in 'best fitting' not as in 'Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger') . And considering when he did it, he did a great job and his basic ideas are still valid. Many details have been filled in, or changed because that's how science works, new evidence 'causes' new or adapted theories, and sometimes make theories obsolete. Still new discoveries are done and more gaps in our knowledge are filled in making evolution maybe the best supported scientific theory (scientific theory, not 'just a theory', that is not the same...). We might 'never' know all the details, so luckily there will be always (increasingly small) gaps to fit in (increasingly small) gods for those who want to believe in magic.

[@jackkomisar458]

In the "Origin of Species", the word "cell" invariably refers to a hexagonal compartment in a honeycomb. The book said nothing about cellular biology.

[@hamrite]

@@jackkomisar458 No-one could then describe what was going on INSIDE the cell, it took quite a few decades to get into the very fine chemistry of the cells.

[@jackkomisar458]

@@hamrite That's true. But Darwin didn't even discuss cell biology. So it is wrong to say "... Darwin's ideas about evolution and natural selection were based on this simplistic understanding of cellular biology."

[@wadeevans4355]

Mmhhh I don’t know, I still leaning towards humans being created by Sumerian gods as a better theory.

[@walkergarya]

You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care, but do not assert it as fact without evidence.

[@wadeevans4355]

@@walkergarya It was a joke ha, calm down there.

[@walkergarya]

@@wadeevans4355 Sorry but creationist post such garbage that it is impossible to know when somebody is mocking them.

[@christopherstanford5599]

😂🤗🤗

[@donnanorth7324]

deep = an even lower level of deception

[@walkergarya]

Sorry but there is no deception, Biological Evolution is real.

[@amlord3826]

Mutations are almost always harmful.

[@budd2nd]

Do you have a citation for that claim? Any scientific evidence that supports it? I’ll wait for you to post it.

[@amlord3826]

@@budd2nd Beneficial mutations are rare AND we need many in the same genetic line to make significant changes, BUT they also somehow explain how useful structures came to be? When a mutation occurs, only ONE individual has it. That individual would need to displace all other genetic lines that didn't have this advantageous characteristic and THEN continue to add more beneficial mutations and not develop detrimental or deadly ones. The chance of this happening (again and again and again) are statistically VERY very low

[@budd2nd]

@@amlord3826 Hi, you have a few misunderstandings about the genetics of evolution. Now, I’m not evolutionary biologist or a geneticist. So my explanations will probably be too simplistic. Far better that you learn from an expert. I’ve just finished watching a public lecture, given by prof Andrew Berry. He is a geneticist and lecturer on orgasmic and evolutionary biology, at Harvard University. The lecture is on here, & it is called - What Darwin didn’t know: Evolution since the origin of species. I suggest that you watch it. It’s about an hour long. It will explain far better than I ever could. But actually given that you probably already accept adaptations, the statistics are extremely high.

[@amlord3826]

@@budd2nd we are literally posting on the comments of that video. I posted this as a reaction to that video. IF most mutations are negative (which science says they are) AND evolution requires many many mutations to change things up, we would need many more generations that we have had and the probability is STILL low that things will go forward and not end up in those organisms which mutate to be the end of the line for their genetic line

[@budd2nd]

@@amlord3826 Oh yes, my mistake. I don’t know why I got confused, but I evidently did. So did you watch the video? Because he explained how one mutation, high up in the causal chain of development. Would radically change the entire body plan, of that organism. He had even done it experimentally.

[@leonardmasano312]

That randomness can create information is stretching possibilities beyond mathematical impossibilities!

[@Gottenhimfella]

Randomness plus selection most certainly can.

[@leonardmasano312]

@Gottenhimfella And how can a blind system without senses make selection? Your colleagues use 'chance' to avoid this dilemma. Even if there is granted that selectiontakes place, information is required to make selection. Where does the information required to make selection come from? Scientists agree that the only source of information is intelligence. How does evolution bypsaa this contradiction?

[@richtomlinson7090]

@@leonardmasano312 Selection, as in Natural Selection, doesn't require information, and randomness probably doesn't mean what you think it means.

[@Gottenhimfella]

​@@leonardmasano312 If you are unaware of the mechanism of natural selection you must have been living under a rock for several centuries and I don't think KZbin can remedy that.

[@budd2nd]

@@leonardmasano312 Scientists don’t agree that the only source of information is intelligence. That is a creationist lie. Mutations produce new information with every live birth . Most of that information is completely neutral, so it does nothing. But occasionally that new information is highly useful.

[@turtlegrams6582]

👁️👁️⚖️✝️🩸👑🕯️🍞💧🌡️😡🌪️🌋👀👂🙏⏳, ain't nothing that old either

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

What Darwin didn't know: He was wrong. Animals were created by an unobservable genius.

[@stoyanfurdzhev]

It's not funny

[@thegroove2000]

What ever is behind this all is rather elusive. No GODS but something else that does not want to reveal its self. Complete opposition to religous beliefs.

[@thegroove2000]

Obviously then more intelligent than anything that ever was and ever maybe. All of men/women and every lifeform put together.

[@thelostone6981]

Meanwhile, Alfred Wallace, crying about Darwin, has a hand on a skull trying to argue why that skull had anti-social behaviors based on the length from the eyebrow to the crown….

[@antifajesus]

This is the dunning-kruger expect he gets some things right but the big picture is all wrong

[@suzbone]

Lolwhut

[@Gottenhimfella]

You reveal yourself clueless about how science works by trotting out absolutist terms like right and wrong. Science is conjecture. Right and wrong answers, or at least your simple minded assertions based on pretending to have access to them, are the province of zealots

[@ClannCholmain]

Show us.

[@saulteanuts-vg8iu]

Tucker Carlson's biggest fan. Lol Buzzword spewing facebook zombie.

[@Dr.Z.Moravcik-inventor-of-AGI]

This guy is talking nonsense. Biology has nothing to say about evolution.

[@oliviamaynard9372]

Lol ok bro

[@Chris-op7yt]

information does in fact come from an intelligent mind. we made up the whole concept of information. it's not a thing in the world. a spider doesnt have eight legs because it or nature know how to count.

[@Sebastian-hg3xc]

Please spare is. This is a video on scientific theory, not religious superstition.

[@Chris-op7yt]

@@Sebastian-hg3xc : i assume you're answering something else, as doesnt make sense

[@marthawolfsen5809]

Information comes from unintelligent minds and no minds at all constantly. A black cloud approaching is information. A temperature rise is information. A smell of smoke is information. A person claiming information only comes from intelligent minds is providing far more information about his own ability to think logically than perhaps is wise.

[@Sebastian-hg3xc]

@@Chris-op7yt I'm not answering. I'm requesting that you spare us with your religious views. THis is a scientific topic, not a superstitious one.

[@Chris-op7yt]

@@Sebastian-hg3xc : where is the religious views? i'm an information systems professional, talking about information theory. besides that, your entire response is: dont tell us that. are you representing everyone? next time try with some substance. i dont need to do stuff to please your lack of understanding. i certainly dont take orders from you. get real

[@Sadqajaria786]

Holy Quran : Chapter 39 Verse 62 "Allah is creator of all things, and He watches over all things"

[@igorjee]

Evidence?

[@Sadqajaria786]

@@igorjee kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIbJapxtbtpqrKs

[@Sadqajaria786]

@@igorjeeRegarding Evidence, the whole universe is in front of us which is telling us that there is a creator who created it. Its a commonsense not even a pencil ✏ creates its own without a creator. So what about the entire universe, biodiversity etc etc etc . Is this not an evidence??

[@igorjee]

​@@Sadqajaria786 God is a way more complex explanation than natural forces alone therefore it is way less probable to be the right one. Look up Occam's razor. To the question of who created God, you could say he is eternal and uncaused, but the same could be said about the Universe. Millions of scientists have been working day and night on evidence-tested hypotheses about the Universe and life. Scientific explanations and predictions are being tested and confirmed again and again while ancient texts usually don't even provide testable predictions only mistaken or at best vague passages that in hindsight may be liberally construed as referring to something science has already discovered. It is best to treat religion as a personal preference of source of solace, enrichment, and connection rather than a source of knowledge. The two are fundamentally incompatible since religion is a compendium of declarations set in stone while science is a self-correcting process of discovery converging on better and better models of reality.

[@bornatona3954]

Theory with such arrogance

[@chrisfreebairn870]

Arrogance? No! The basis of science is humility, humility to ask questions, gather data, interrogate it, recognise it's weaknesses, consider new ways to think about the questions, etc etc etc. This is the exact opposite of arrogance; in fact it is deliberately, by design & discipline, anti arrogance. Your comment suggests a deep projection - you see in others what you are - not what is actually there. The epitome of arrogance is to believe that a body of thought several thousand years old, cobbled together by humans over hundreds of years into a single book, is the end of all enquiry, the sole source of truth evermore; relegating as nonsense - all similar contemporary representations across the globe by many civilizations (each with their own creation stories & gods), as well as the voluminous products of civilisation & science. That is arrogance; of the worst kind, because it is not simple ignorance, it is wilful, deliberate ignorance, the greatest sin, to use a term you may relate to.

[@andywomack3414]

Monotheistic belief systems, arrogance without evidence. The arrogance of Christians, Jews, and Muslims is deadly and has killed millions. The attacks on September 11, 2001 demonstrated how faith in God can make all things possible.

[@andywomack3414]

@@chrisfreebairn870 Monotheism is a curse on humanity.

[@suzbone]

​@@andywomack3414 religion in general is like a booster rocket that helped launch human thought... and now that its job is done and it's time to move on to the next stage, some people won't let it go. I'm deeply worried that they're gonna crash the whole damn ship 😢

[@derekallen4568]

Arrogance is when someone claims their god is the real one and all the other thousands of gods are false.