Richard Dawkins - Applying Darwinian Evolution to Physics

matthew22389 Says:

Mar 22, 2012 - While I do find your comment quite humorous, such illiteracy is to be expected when someone is in a blind rage.

AQWaddict Says:

Mar 22, 2012 - From my interpretation, Dawkins doesn't rule that out as a possibility, he says that life would arise in tweaked versions, or entirely different sets that happen to work, although these play as the minority. In the majority however, natural constants would exist where evolution is not possible. For example, if the law of conservation of matter did not exist. Poof matter, poof no matter. Chaos. Hard to organize order. Hard to get evolution. Hard to get life. Hope my simplification makes sense.

TDKR012 Says:

Mar 22, 2012 - dawkins has been exposed recently as keeping from the public eye his bloody history of slavery, his estate is built on the blood & sweat of black slaves! He denied this for a long , long time. This filthy wretch, sleeps at night knowing that he lives off the blood of black slaves who were tortured, subjugated and murdered. He claims to be civilised? He's sanctimonious and a hypocrite of the highest degree. A worm, a slimey lying dishonest and manipulative little worm who squirms and wriggles!

badmuthahubbard Says:

Mar 28, 2012 - Did I miss the part where he showed evidence of other universes?

MidnightTea7 Says:

Apr 5, 2012 - Well, you have obviously missed what this video is about. Dawkins wasn't talking about the hard science here, he is very well aware and - through his language - very clear that what he's talking about are hypotheses and unverified assertions, although (from what I know) these assertions aren't taken completely out of the window.

MidnightTea7 Says:

Apr 5, 2012 - Well, at least the evolution and life as we know it. We know that organism such as ours exist in world such as ours and need world like ours to exist... but at this point we can't really tell if there exist other forms of life or - more importantly - forms of sentient life that didn't evolve in the way we did, as laws in their universe were different.

MrMunchhead Says:

Apr 7, 2012 - the problem is that we are still the minority :[its impossible for us to rise up before we have managed to open their eyes...

MrMunchhead Says:

Apr 7, 2012 - yo dawk i love ya be mah bro

Genet1xProductions Says:

Apr 15, 2012 - Looks kinda like he's sitting in a chair backwards!

RECurseTO Says:

Apr 24, 2012 - what about that firing squad?why every rifle missed?because there are some alternative universes where they were on target!

OldaurGold Says:

Apr 30, 2012 - this dawkins character idiot is dumb. he is so so so dumb that he believes that all the matter got squished into this little dot, which exploded and created the whole universe. well, dimwit, how did that matter get squished into that tiny dot? Didn't god do that? oh no, sorry, he's anti-god. HE PRAYS TO THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION AND RELIGION OF BIG BANG

manthasagittarius1 Says:

Apr 30, 2012 - You missed the part where he said there were many physicists who stated there was independent evidence for believing there were multiple universes -- including the astronomer royal, Martin Rees. It was pretty clear if you weren't belching between slugs of brew or something. Rees has many videos on youtube too. Check him out.

ryanthomasmccallum Says:

May 5, 2012 - even if thats the case which your wrong, it would not give any justification of ones god over another, matter was created in the big bang, high impact collision of negative and positive forces causes the creation of matter, thats what the LHC is showing

PersonifiedMusic Says:

May 7, 2012 - I feel extremely sorry for you, being born into a country of wingnutted idiocracy. May you one day find reason.

jfarwell92 Says:

May 8, 2012 - As a student of evolutionary biology, I can understand what observations would lead Dawkins to think this way. Assuming I'm right (and remembering that I lack an extensive physics background), however, I see a problem with the notion of Darwinian principles applying to the inorganic.All the components of organic evolution (genetic, epigenetic, cultural (for humans) and behavioral) are able to be influenced by the environment as well as each other to bring about mutations--argo, evolvability.

jfarwell92 Says:

May 8, 2012 - This is not true of inorganic evolution as it lacks that emergant property. The laws that comprise physics are constant, and cannot be altered in any way given no outside force to alter them, which is why they are called law rather than theory (though creationists in their infinate wisdom may misuse the word "theory" to distort the truth.) Therefore a "daugher universe" stemming from a black hole would be subject to the exact confines as its predeceasor.

pigsfood27 Says:

May 10, 2012 - if darwinism is true, and survival of the fittest applies, then why did dinosaurs change into birds? shouldn't they have either stayed dinosaurs, or become more intelligent and better at survival?

libalchris Says:

May 14, 2012 - Because "fittest" doesn't mean quite what you think it does. Fittest means most able to survive long enough to reproduce. It doesn't mean strongest or smartest.

pigsfood27 Says:

May 14, 2012 - yeah, but when sexual reproduction between two genders of species is applied, the whole "fittest to reproduce" thing goes out the window. wouldn't asexual reproduction be the best solution for species? why did a simple organism gain the sexual reproduction system, along with many other systems throughout time? it doesn't make sense. none of it does, really.

libalchris Says:

May 14, 2012 - No, and here's why: remember that natural selection acts on variation. Sexual reproduction adds additional variation which allows organisms to evolve faster. There's more information out there on it. CDk007 condenses a lot of it in his video "the evolution of sex"

pigsfood27 Says:

May 14, 2012 - But that doesn't answer anything. Why is there even sexual reproduction if asexual reproduction is so efficient? Asexual was the first reproducing method, then sexual, then non-asexual. Why add on another immensely complicated system in order to progress the species in order to survive? It would make more sense for an organism to remain as a bacteria-like creature. If every species came from a less complicated form, then why go through all the trouble? Do you get what I'm saying?

libalchris Says:

May 14, 2012 - I understand what your question is, b I'm not entirely sure you understand my response, so let me explain further. There are a lot of trade-offs in life. Pollination for example. A flower that uses insects for pollination has a better chance of getting pollinated, however it has to waste energy to produce food to attract insects. In the case of sexual reproduction, there is a similar trade-off. Sexual reproduction is less efficient, but it also provides more variety, allowing quicker evolution.

libalchris Says:

May 14, 2012 - cont... let me explain a little bit further. If that is the case, you may wonder why there are bacteria at all, and anything reproduces asexually. This is because there is nothing that is clear-cut "better" than another thing. Evolution is a product of the environment, not of objective "better." Something that is better for one organism may not be better for another. like a furry coat is better for animals living in the north than in the desert. cont...

libalchris Says:

May 14, 2012 - In the case of reproduction, certain environmental factors may have placed selective pressure for sexual reproduction on some bacteria, while not on others.