Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
Richard Dawkins interviews Steven Pinker for “The Genius of Charles Darwin”, the Channel 4 UK TV program which won British Broadcasting Awards’ “Best Documentary Series” of 2008. Buy the full 3-DVD set of uncut interviews, over 18 hours, in the RichardDawkins.net store: http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=85
This footage was shot with the intention of editing for a television program. What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content).
Source
such horrible camera work. constantly moving here and there. Would have been better to just stop at a picture of both
I had to watch the whole thing standing up
Within the first 2 minutes of the video , Steve Pinker explains the entire evolutionery hypothesis including his field of evolutionary psychology.
He explains how creationists drove Darwin crazy by questioning him on the complexity
of the eye on how Darwin ( Dawkins & Pinker ) intentionally misrepresented their
speculations ( theory) on the simplicity of the eye as thou it had some scientific
merit.
What they don't mention is that there were all sorts of scientists that achieved much more
in their careers then the likes of Darwin , Dawkins and Pinker that don;t agree with this antiquated and unscientific theory then and now.
That's why we have people like Pinker explaining why people snarl relating to our early
hominid brethren or possibly how most people can dog paddle , even thou they cant swim.
Or how humans evolved the capability to move their eye brows individually to
have more characteristics in their facial expressions.?
Yes , just simply think physiological changes into effect .
It's all so wonderfully simple if it doesn't have to meet any other science.
Or Dawkins , to this day plundering on about the poorly designed backward eye and Pinker
giving his confirmation to this unscientific evolutionery nonsense.
Perhaps if they looked at most of the research thats been around for years showing
that most of the things that their stating to be completely untrue , they wouldn't be
decades behind in their science.
But , I suppose thats the nice thing about a good part of evolutionery science is that
it's supporters claim it explains everything when in actuality it explains nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5M8fXCyQ94
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZkPAanGXsc&lc=z12zwrmbvpmgxxade23qfvpgao3efdkvy.1501763640613295
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kboUBQnMP8w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvozcv8pS3c&t=3s
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/if-the-human-eye-was-a-camera-how-much-would-it-cost/
https://curiosity.com/topics/how-many-megapixels-is-the-human-eye-the-answer-is-complicated-curiosity/
Speciation can only result via adaptive mutation. Natural selection may shuffle genes around + account for slight changes in, e.g. hair or eye colour. But it can never account for big changes, e.g. appearance of a wing where before there was only an arm. For that new genes must appear: Speciation can only result via adaptive mutation. Natural selection may shuffle genes around + account for slight changes in, e.g. hair or eye colour. But it can never account for big changes, e.g. appearance of a wing where before there was only an arm. For that new genes must appear. New genes only happen via accidents in copying: genetic mutations.
Because damaging mutations occur, e.g. Downs syndrome, dwarfism, cystic fibrosis, Huntingdon´s disease, Darwinists say that useful mutation must happen too.
Now, there are those who say no such beneficial mutation is known. That may be disputed, but even the most ardent Darwinist agrees that useless mutations enormously outnumber useful mutations.
So the evidence for this ought to be visible in fossil records. But it isn´t.
This fact falsifies neo-Darwinism.
It simply blows it out of the trees and reveals it for what it is: a harmless creation myth.
As a Danish person its clear to me that English is a germanic language.
Sure language is a innate instinct. I came arcoss a boy, who at he age at 4 mastered four languages. Danish, English, Farsi and French.
Pity the theory of evolution is a lie.
People like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker are either
1) Lying. They know evolution is a myth.
or
2) They really believe it and they're stupid.
Which is it?
damn these people are so smart
Great interview by Richard Dawkins. Steven Pinker is a great person, though I'm surprised by how outdated his views of parrots are.
Classic cameraman. Who wants to chip in and get them another camera? Love the video btw
Listening to these two is such a pleasant experience.
At the 1 hour mark, they are involved in a discussion of the limitations of the intuition. Dawkins says, "If our ancestors had been in the habit of travelling at the speed of light, Einstein would be obvious." Actually, among the Tibetan Buddhists, their meditative techniques obtained sufficient disassociation from the physical body that their brains were, in effect, doing just that. And, the psychological depth of their comprehension of the relation of thought to matter reflects experiences that closely parallel many of the hypotheses that led to quantum theory. Most will dismiss this as lacking a basis in scientific thinking. I would argue that they were among the ancients whose thinking ultimately came to be appreciated as "Scientific".
This is so stimulating.
Venomous Steve, VENOMOUS
I would’ve walked up, jumped right in:
“You know what’s crazy? Like, how do our fingernails even know to grow?”
Would’ve really got the conversation going.
ass
neo-Darwinism relies upon occasional useful + adaptive mutations.
Some say no such constructive mutation is known and even the most ardent defender of neo-Darwinism argues that only a very, very few might help.
Thus it renders itself FALSIFIABLE
We ought to find an abundance of aberrant fossils. But every fossil found, wherever and whenever, works. That´s to say we may envisage it flying, running, swimming.
For the abundant squillions of twisted, weirdie beasts that ought to result from neo-Darwinian accidents we see no evidence.
This ONE Point FALSIFIES neo-Darwinism.
For such precision of fossilised remains is the last thing to result from a process which relies on random generation of unsupervised novelties.
"The unlikelihood of a result does not tell you the cause of that result", asserts Mr Matt Dillahunty.
But the unlikelihood of non-aberrant fossils does tell us that, if evolution occurred, the mechanism driving it could not have been neo-Darwinian.
However, neither does it tell us what did happen.
neo-Darwinism is a harmless creation myth.
Why does Pain have to hurt so much ?
I love the fact that he just happened to have a brain in a jar to use as a prop for the discussion
Where would we be if the average person had even 1/10 the grasp on reality these two have?
The automobile/falling analogy made me think about why humans crash in cars so often. One is that we are insulated from the speed, so we "feel" safe. The other is that many humans (mostly male) love the feeling of speed more than the feeling of safety. I heard an interesting story about Taxi drivers in a large city when the new taxis had anti-lock brakes for the first time. There were actually more accidents because drivers felt they could stop faster and so took more chances.
12:42 the casual brain prop reveal
27:50
Music?,
Two brilliant men. Thank you.
The question at around 52:30 about why pain has to be painful is interesting, but surely the reason is that the sensation of pain has to be strong enough to cause sufficient rewiring of the brain (learning) so that in future whatever stimulus brought about the pain is avoided. A simple red light saying "don't do that again" couldn't be enough to cause this.
The aversion to negative stimuli long predates the emergence of consciousness, so it stands to reason that the feeling of pain is a very old and deep one, and therefore would had to have been of use before anything complicated like the neocortex came along.
Good but I wish they would sit down.
Any family that has many sons … the youngest son is statistically much more likely to be gay and it does have to do with Mothers hormones in the womb. There is a selection pressure for this…. it has to do with Frueds Primal horde theory ( about 500K-1 million years ago) As protohumanity was evolving into modern humans … we used to run around in family/ tribal small hordes where one male patriarch ruled the roost and controlled sexual access to all the females and all tribal resources..Families with several sons with at least one of them being gay are far less likely to aggressively fight against the existing patriarchical order of the tribe. This would increase the tribes cohesiveness and chance that it would continue as an intact unit versus internecine warfare where one larger tribe would split into smaller and weaker families/tribes/hordes that would not have successive generations.Conversely if families had too many aggressive males they would gang up and kill the father ( the origin of a god figurehead btw- the father – the dead father becomes a god) killing the Father creates a chaotic order of things less likely for that gene pool to create new generations. There wouod be more wars for dominance and the cycle would repeat. If you have some homosexuals in the mix it helps to sustain order tame aggressive instincts amongst a group of brothers and gay people wouldn’t compete for females with father and brothers which leads to instability.
Q: How many evolutionary psychologists does it take to find a chair?
These 2 are clearly struck by cognitive dissonance which is why they try and explain everything using Darwinian theory
My kids (now adults) learned language shockingly quickly, easily, and quickly became adept at putting words together. It was amazing to me. I'm sure this is completely normal, but it's quite an adventure to live through it with one's kids. I can see that what these gentleman say about childhood language development seems to be true or near-true.
CHARLES DARWIN WAS A PERSON OF LOW INTELLECT. THE AGENDA OF ATHEISTS AND SCIENCE
IS TO PUSH THE FALSE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, WHICH IS ABOUT THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IF YOU ARE POOR IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT FIT ENOUGH TO
MAKE MORE MONEY.
@50:00 when they talk about evolutionary strategies for feelings of depression and anxiety. Wow, that was well said.
Music? Why after not hearing a song after 50+ years is it just as familiar as it was back then? I'd look first for a functional explanation.
Speaking of 2-year-olds picking up languages fast: I had a 2-year old girl who used to come regularly to see us. She found a wart on my arm and asked me what it was. I jested that my wife had stabbed me with a knife which caused the wart. Thereafter everyday she would come and touch my wart and ask the same series of questions. The first question would be stabbed? The second question would always be did wife stab and the third question would always be did wife stab with a knife? I am from India and this conversation was always in our mother-tongue Malayalam. But there was this order – verb first, then the doer and third came other details. May be that is how we analyse information with the verb coming first, the subject coming second and other info coming last.
Satisfying listening to two great minds of our times…
Why are they staring each other in the eyes for such a long period of time? Isn't that uncomfortable while you try to formulate ideas?
I think, because Darwin, Erasmus, and Luther are of the same family, the persecution was so severe for the less financially secure people, Darwin offered an explanation. The Bible has a printed sentence,. "from the creation outward everything that is seen explains everything that needs to be known", (my interpretation of your dream).