Dawkins: Lecture 3. Climbing Mount Improbable ( 8of 8 ) Videos

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - The two chemicals when mixed together will not explode. Dawkins is being slightly sarcastic when he says these are the two chemicals that are going to explode when mixed. He mixes them and they do not explode thus refuting the creationist claim that they would explode. He then explains that the beetle does indeed mix these two chemical in a special chamber. The beetle then adds another substance called a catalyst that produces a chemical reaction. This squirts into the face of it's enemy.

LordTerror56 Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Wouldn't the two different substances (catalyst + mix) need to be in seperate parts of the beetle's body, though?

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Go and fuck yourself you creationist arse hole. You don't fool the Doc. No more explanation from me. Do your own fuckin research you brainless bastard!

renaudldw Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Please, don't be offensed, he's just asking a harmless question...

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - He's a creationist who has the sole intention of messing peeople about. I could give him a 10000 word detailed explanation and he would still just keep on saying that he doesn't understand. It's an old creationist time wasting tactic. If he cannot understand this video which explins evolution in very simple terms then he is either a time waster or a retard.

renaudldw Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Ok, I get your point. But assuming that they're really retards, still, you shouldn't be so mean to retards, it's not their fault that they're retards right?

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - I no longer sit back like a wise monkey and allow creationist retards to have a public platform. If they want to comment then they should first do a bit of research and then comment. If they are psychologically fucked up then that is their problem. The brainless fuckers would be incapable of studying biology at elementary level yet they want their views to be respected. They have one aim in mind when they comment and that is to fuck people about.I've seen through their dirty tricks. Fuck them.

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - LordTerror56. You can now comment.

rinorberisha Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Thank you very much for the wonderful uploads Drmontague. We really really appreciate them!

victimlesscriminal Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - The concept of the necessity of a 'smooth slope' applies neatly to most aspects of life when decisions have to be made. It is the perfect adjunct to the concept of there not being black and white but only grades of grey.Thanks DrM - great series of lectures. And thanks Richard Dawkins - hero.

ejkaull Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - OK, first, I love the BBC.I think his concepts are well thought out and persuasive but, I see problems with some of the logic. For example, how would the creature with the first primitive eye, that could only see light or darkness, how to respond to the stimuli. For example is light good and darkness bad or is the opposite true? I think he assumes a lot. Another example, why would simply warming the face of the predator with the weak solution enable the beetle to escape? Seems improbable.

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - We are not talking about light or darkness being good or bad. Rather how each living creature has evolved to the stimulation or environment of light and darkness. Some living things have evolved eyes others haven't. Simply google i.e. do a bit of your own research into these subjest or aquire some authoriative books on the subject. Remember these xmas lectures are an indroduction to to evolutionary theory. Do some research then come back and let us know what you found out.

ejkaull Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Not good or bad in the moral sense - good as in "I won't be eaten" and bad as in "I will be eaten". There is no ORIGINAL "pre-programming" to stimuli so, I have a hard time buying that argument. If a small creature scatters because of some external stimuli it is just as likely to scatter into a small cave or another larger creature's mouth. I think he's missing pivotal points of logic here. Maybe you should make a small flow chart to help you to see my point. Let me know how you do!

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - You clearly don't understand evolution theory. I suspect that you are a time wasting creationist. Go and do your own research. I am not going to be your free on;ine teacher. There are plenty of websites and books out are there.

shrikechan Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - DEE DEE DEE!!! You win the retard award!

shrikechan Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - If only all Creationists were retards, unfortunatly some are actually intelligent and were simply too willing to believe what is more comforting than what is true. They try to deny reality to believe something that is more comforting to them, instead of just accepting reality and being happy with what they are.

TheGeneralOfWar Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - There are many things that need to be answered, both by IDist and evolutionist. I am a math person, and evolution is statistically very impossible. However, you are confusing science with the philosophy of science. The argument that IDist make is that they should be allowed in to the debate. After they are allowed in, then we can start debating their facts.

TheGeneralOfWar Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Say I were to go to the market, but not allowed to sell my product. I would not have any reason or incentive to make my product better. However, if I were allowed to sell my product, I would want to make it good so it would sell. I would research and do other things. If someone had a better product than me then they would win. However, what we are doing is basically banning ID from the marketplace of ideas.

TheGeneralOfWar Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - There is one rule of the marketplace of ideas: Facts cannot be discarded. You have to deal with all of the facts and come up with the most plausible explanation for them. It is that one law of scientific inquiry that keeps science moving forward. Scientists aren't afforded the luxury of simply accumulating facts that support their theories and ignoring the ones that do not.

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - You couldn't add up your fucking shopping list. So quit pretending that your a mathematician. Stick ID up your arse where it belongs.

zzzfucku Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - WOW retard just radiates from you. You sure proved me wrong, I could not add up my shopping list. There is a fucking scientific statement for you.How about I shove it up your arse?

DrMontague Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Go back to your brain dead crearionist web sites where you belong.

AdenineMonkey Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Exactly, and that's just what creationists tend to do. An example is the recent discovery of a fish-tetrapod transitional fossil called Tiktaalik. A scientific article in Nature by Per Ahlberg detailed the similarities this fossil shared with fossil fish like Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys and fossil amphibians like Ichtyostega.Creationist David Menton responded with an article that not only ignored Ahlberg's facts , but argues about Tiktaalik's hind quarters... which haven't been found.

AdenineMonkey Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - No one is banning ID from the scientific discussion. As soon as they come with actual arguments based on facts that they haven't made up, and try to explain something instead of saying "we can't see how it happened, so it's impossible" there will be a discussion.

ManicEightBall Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - Wow, that's quite a pretzel of an argument. S you're saying I should be able to publish any dribble I can manage, and if they let me publish enough, I'll end up getting better and maybe even come up with a good theory.hahahahaHere's how it works, you come up with something reasonable and innovative, and they'll publish it - even if you're a creationist.