Richard Dawkins - Evolution, Inheritance, and Biology

[@virginiatyree6705]

Nice to see Richard is still kicking around. Thanks for posting.

[@isatousarr7044]

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.

[@peweegangloku6428]

This is more of an observation in nature than it is about its origination.

[@CharlesFiandaca]

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.

[@virginiatyree6705]

@@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

[@dm20422]

Dawkins is a legend 🎶❤️

[@Mohammed-sk6rn]

Is rechard Dawkins still alive.😮

[@shibafujiwatches2808]

Been a fan for some years. Love the new videos. 🙏

[@magicmjk09]

Amazing to see Richard Dawkins on CTT after all!

[@codymarch164]

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.

[@KostadinIvanov-ik9qs]

[@RoiHolden]

How far does this concept extend? Is the internet an extended phenotype?

[@ingenuity296]

Richard Dawkins! ❤❤❤

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

The real living entity can never appear in science..

[@virginiatyree6705]

@@neffetSnnamremmiZ , Never, is a very, very loooooong time. v

[@Paine137]

Thor thanks you.

[@edwardtutman196]

The term "genetic adaptation" is a more revealing descriptor than "Darwinian adaptation".

[@SoimulPatriei]

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.

[@shahidmiah917]

So if animals build shelters, that’s proof of Evolution? Can Dawkins hear himself speak? Or am I missing something here?

[@KonstantinPrydnikov1]

Cameraman is god flying around

[@PLASKETT7]

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.

[@keithwalmsley1830]

Feels more like a biology lecture rather than a philosophical or ontological discussion.

[@franklink472]

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.

[@mithrandir2006]

What if every particle tends to be a biological cell, eventually?

[@pandoraeeris7860]

The original meme spreader!

[@tedgrant2]

Oxford University Natural History Museum ?

[@reimannx33]

Dawkin's explanation is clear, precise, and insightful.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

Does Mr Dawkins know everything is energy and energy is vibrations and there's nothing vibrating? 🙄

[@prontsc]

"If Man evolved from monkees, why are still monkees"? George Carlin.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

It seems that this question was asked by a monkey.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Only monkees without tail were chosen for evolution .

[@virginiatyree6705]

@@obiwanduglobi6359 , Too funny 🤣🤣 🤣 v

[@Paine137]

“Religion is BS.” - George Carlin

[@tedgrant2]

If Jesus cured the blind, why are there still blind people ?

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Mr. Dawkins shows approach evolution development make up experiences are senseless rethoric. Dawkins opinions are emperism details out. Proof out .

[@CriticalThinker02]

How utterly empty this purposeless, materialistic worldview is. I realize I’m conjecturing, but I can almost hear the despair in Richard’s voice.

[@diycraftq8658]

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

[@luckyluckydog123]

what do you mean by "one source"?

[@angel4everable]

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.

[@codymarch164]

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.

[@codymarch164]

But hey, where else do you have to go now. So you just go around and reify atheists so not feeling so alone.

[@4124V4TA-SNPCA-x]

​​@@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.

[@SillyHumons]

There is no logical case for evolution. We can't even make anything ourselves without using our brains without thought without planning. How can cells without intelligence, without the ability and vision to use information, build anything at all. The underlying universe has to be that of a great unseen mind.

[@fadeitluie9356]

Disrespectful to the whole field of Theology, Philosophy, Metaphysics

[@dongshengdi773]

Darwinian evolution is proof of design, therefore there is a Designer or programmer, just like humans design and program AI and simulations .

[@virginiatyree6705]

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

[@Shalnn]

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

[@Paine137]

Evolution by natural selection is the designer. Hello, anyone home.

[@evaadam3635]

​@@ShalnnDarwin's Natural Selection is an OXIMORON because "to select" is NOT natural but a Conscious Choice....

[@evaadam3635]

​@@Paine137To design or to select is a Conscious Choice that is not what your material science define as NATURAL...

[@Hulk-m5e]

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.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Upbringing.

[@virginiatyree6705]

​@@sujok-acupuncture9246, That's one conclusion/opinion. v

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Evolution starts in consciousness and completes in biology.

[@virginiatyree6705]

You know that there's a belief that existence is an illusion. You may be familiar with the concept.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@virginiatyree6705 wrong belief. Otherwise you would not be commenting here... This world is real.

[@virginiatyree6705]

@@sujok-acupuncture9246 , Ok, so you're not familiar with the concept. Budism is big on the illusion of it all. v

[@virginiatyree6705]

@@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

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@virginiatyree6705 since this world is an illusion according to you, what is the use of discussing any subject.

[@LifeShouldNotExist1]

Evolution of consciousness is still in process. As everything still is and will always be.

[@evaadam3635]

the freedom to choose to BELIEVE in Spiritual GOD as an Involuntary Natural Process is definitely an OXIMORON !

[@LifeShouldNotExist1]

​@@evaadam3635 ​I agree. No one can choose what they believe, in principle and specifically not by a natural involuntary process.

[@evaadam3635]

​@@LifeShouldNotExist1..thinking that NATURAL LAW allows BELIEF is another OXIMORON...

[@LifeShouldNotExist1]

​@@evaadam3635 ​ Define what you mean by BELIEF?

[@evaadam3635]

​@@LifeShouldNotExist1Belief is simply FAITH, or an assumption that something is true by choice to explain the unknown for lack of knowledge of truth but for a reason, be it good or stoopid reason.. Example : I believe in GOD for a good reason, while you believe in Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama for stoopid reason, looking funny...

[@dongshengdi773]

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.

[@virginiatyree6705]

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

[@deus790]

Appeal to authority fallacy, claim made by someone who have authority doesn't make the claim right.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

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!

[@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. 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.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@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?

[@paulrussell1207]

@@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.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@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.

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

😅😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Hulk-m5e]

Can evolution make humans fearless in nature like lions?

[@asyetundetermined]

This question alone betrays a complete misunderstanding of how evolutionary processes occur.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@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?

[@asyetundetermined]

@ 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.

[@Hulk-m5e]

@asyetundetermined we are intelligent so are tenacious and brave not by power

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@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.

[@mkhatame86]

Richard Dawkins is an example of a genius but stupid at the same time.

[@virginiatyree6705]

@@mkhatame86 , It happens all the time. v

[@OrthodoxJoker]

Evolution has teleology. Dicky Dawkins makes people Christian.

[@virginiatyree6705]

Disagree, Darwin didn't make me a Christian. v

[@jayk5549]

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

[@virginiatyree6705]

@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

[@asanmohamed3875]

God is great,, given much freedom of human hand

[@AshishSoham112]

There is no god as creator.

[@dongshengdi773]

​@@AshishSoham112 true, no love , no good , no evil , Even science doesn't exist, Only curiosity and greed.

[@dongshengdi773]

​@@AshishSoham112even scientists have proven that we don't exist , and impossible to exist . Materialism has been debunked. That's why science is my religion 👍

[@virginiatyree6705]

​@@AshishSoham112, 110% agree with that statement. v

[@virginiatyree6705]

​@@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

[@longcastle4863]

A brain worm is a good way to describe the idea of God in the mind of humans, I think. And just as destructive.

[@evaadam3635]

...if you have no faith, you are vulnerable to evil influence to become destructive...

[@longcastle4863]

⁠@@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.

[@evaadam3635]

​​@@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...

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

Dr. Richard Dawkins is right about the unhealthy and immoral nature of religions, but wrong about assuming physicalism is truth..

[@micahgmiranda]

I've never heard him use that word. It seems like you're strawmanning conveniently.

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

@micahgmiranda Dr. Dawkins perceives biological phenomena through the lens of materialist reductionism (physicalism).

[@micahgmiranda]

@@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.

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

@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.

[@micahgmiranda]

@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.