Richard Dawkins: Evolution And 'Digital Darwinism'
Science & Reason on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/ScienceReason
Darwin's Universal Impact: Evolution And 'Digital Darwinism'. Professor Richard Dawkins (University of Oxford) @ University of Cambridge: Darwin's universal impact.
---
Please subscribe to Science & Reason:
• http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceMagazine
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceTV
• http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
---
Was Darwin the most revolutionary scientist ever?
If, by revolutionary, we mean the scientist whose discovery initiated the most seismic overturning of pre-existing science, the honour would at least be contested by Newton, Einstein and the architects of quantum theory.
Those same physicists might have outclassed Darwin in sheer intellectual fire power. But Darwin probably did revolutionize the world view of people outside science more comprehensively than any other scientist.
I want to recognize four bridges to evolutionary understanding. The first bridge is to natural selection as a force for weeding out the unfit. The second bridge is the recognition that natural selection can drive evolutionary change.
Bridge number three leads to the imaginative grasp of the importance of natural selection in explaining all of life, in all its speciose richness. Bridge number four is the bridge to public understanding and appreciation. Darwin crossed it alone, in 1859, by writing "On the Origin of Species".
The fifth bridge, which Darwin himself never crossed was neo-Darwinism or what I shall rename digital Darwinism because the essence of Mendelian genetics is that it is digital. As crests get longer, or eyes rounder, or tails gaudier, what is really being carved by natural selection is the gene pool.
As mutation and sexual recombination enrich the gene pool, the chisels of natural selection carve it into shape, working away through geological time. It is an image that might have seemed strange to Darwin. But I think he would have come to love it.
-- Richard Dawkins
---
Richard Dawkins is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer. He was born in Nairobi in 1941, graduated from the University of Oxford in 1962, where he also studied for his doctorate. He spent two years at the University of California, Berkeley, USA, before returning to Oxford in 1970 to take up a lectureship in the Zoology Department.
Between 1995 and 2008, Dawkins held the Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.
He published his first book, "The Selfish Gene", in 1976. It became an instant bestseller, as were subsequent books, amongst them, "The Blind Watch Maker" (1986) and, more recently, "The God Dellusion" (2006).
He makes regular TV and radio appearances. He has won prizes for science, science communication, literature and TV productions.
http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/684763
.
Darwin's Universal Impact: Evolution And 'Digital Darwinism'. Professor Richard Dawkins (University of Oxford) @ University of Cambridge: Darwin's universal impact.
---
Please subscribe to Science & Reason:
• http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceMagazine
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceTV
• http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
---
Was Darwin the most revolutionary scientist ever?
If, by revolutionary, we mean the scientist whose discovery initiated the most seismic overturning of pre-existing science, the honour would at least be contested by Newton, Einstein and the architects of quantum theory.
Those same physicists might have outclassed Darwin in sheer intellectual fire power. But Darwin probably did revolutionize the world view of people outside science more comprehensively than any other scientist.
I want to recognize four bridges to evolutionary understanding. The first bridge is to natural selection as a force for weeding out the unfit. The second bridge is the recognition that natural selection can drive evolutionary change.
Bridge number three leads to the imaginative grasp of the importance of natural selection in explaining all of life, in all its speciose richness. Bridge number four is the bridge to public understanding and appreciation. Darwin crossed it alone, in 1859, by writing "On the Origin of Species".
The fifth bridge, which Darwin himself never crossed was neo-Darwinism or what I shall rename digital Darwinism because the essence of Mendelian genetics is that it is digital. As crests get longer, or eyes rounder, or tails gaudier, what is really being carved by natural selection is the gene pool.
As mutation and sexual recombination enrich the gene pool, the chisels of natural selection carve it into shape, working away through geological time. It is an image that might have seemed strange to Darwin. But I think he would have come to love it.
-- Richard Dawkins
---
Richard Dawkins is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer. He was born in Nairobi in 1941, graduated from the University of Oxford in 1962, where he also studied for his doctorate. He spent two years at the University of California, Berkeley, USA, before returning to Oxford in 1970 to take up a lectureship in the Zoology Department.
Between 1995 and 2008, Dawkins held the Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.
He published his first book, "The Selfish Gene", in 1976. It became an instant bestseller, as were subsequent books, amongst them, "The Blind Watch Maker" (1986) and, more recently, "The God Dellusion" (2006).
He makes regular TV and radio appearances. He has won prizes for science, science communication, literature and TV productions.
http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/684763
.
where is Ray Confort and Kirk Cameron.
where did you get that from? The only Crackpot who says that is William Densky.
Maybe it is better if you post in Ray Comfort or the Discovery Institute Channel.
There you can discuss the legitimacy of Crocoducks, Bananas nightmare, and big and small dogs that fix in cars.
Leave real Science and Math to real experts with real credentials from accredited universities. not from Bible colleges like Densky
Well you did not mention name so I gues I mention them for you.
Let me guess, your top of the line guys are: William A. Dembski, Michael Behe, and mean spirited David Berlinski, the three stooges of creationism Intelligence design who want to prove Creationism by teaching grade school children, and apealling to the popular believe in genesist by the public, but not by submitting papers to the academic of Science for peer reviews by other scientist and prove them wrong?
Let us say, you do have one Long Range Silver who can prove that life does not evolve. He will have to publish his research, so that other scientist can test it and verify his finding.
It is not I, that he has to convince he has to demonstrate it to people like: Dawkins, Myers, Scott, Lawrence Krauss, Michael Shermer, Kenneth Miller, and the list go on, that they got it all wrong.
They will be the first to admit they are wrong, you can trust me on that.
Well what can I said, You are the genius saying science should not be taken seriously. At the same time you also gives credo to Astrology, 6000 years old Earth is as valid as 4 billion year old.
I am going to go on a ledge here and said that, that Cambridge guy you said proved life does not evolve is you.
Else why not tell us his name so we can read his publications.
I start to wonder if you just picked Cambridge because that was where the lecture in the video was.
Dude you need to underhand that there is not equivalence between
6000 year old planet and Geology science, Astrology and Astronomy,
Creation of leaving things in their present form and Evolution from primitive forms.
If you think you or you top guy can prove otherwise, then go on summit your paper to the academic of science for scrutiny. you certailly have the right to prove it.
Dude, Fred Hoyle and his steady State theory for the origin of the Universe was wrong.
The man's became a bitter scientist who in his latest days even rejected his own Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis because he was so appalled to the idea that life could be the result of natural Chemical evolution.
The man was so bitter that he even denied the authenticity of Dinosaurs fossils.
Fred Hoyle was a scantiest, but his failures made a bitter man out of him.
I hate to keep beaten you, It is so eassy that it is not even fair, but you keep coming back for more. When you said you do not believe evolution but you do not believe in creationism the third answer is Astrology.
Now we are in Crackpot territory, because the Astrological answer, according to Carl Segan, it was Prometheus who created man and stoled fire from Zeus to give to man...
I think even the Creationist will scorn you if they find out what you believe.
In a way I admire your courage, very few people in the world have the guts to publically admit they believe in Astrology, Intelligence Design / Creationism, and Scientology. I am surprise you aren't also calling for: Parapsychology, Witchcraft, Magic and Mythology to be also elevated to the same level of science.
On the Fred Hoyle Steady State Theory, there is this thing.
Scientific Theories can be Falsified. and Hoyle Theory has being falsified many time in by many independent sources.
The Background Radiation, the General Theory of Relativity, The expansion of the universe, The fact that there fundamental forces of nature unified under extreme conditions, all point to the validity of the Big Bang, and at the same time dismiss Steady State universe.
So if you want to falsify evolution all you have to do is find a fossil of a modern Animal who is several dozen millions of years old.
for example if you find a the reminds of a man that is 30 or 40 millions year old, you will completely debunk evolution. But if you keep calling Genesis, and Zeus all you will get is mocks.
On the Theory of Evolution, in simple turns the theory says that the diversity of life comes about because a serious of small variations combined with natural selection lead spices to becomes unique and stop interbreeding with their ancestors.
As time pass life become more complex because it contains the traits of the ancestor and the new traits descendants.