Darwin Day Questions: Is Evolution a Fact? 

I cannot observe yesterday, I guess it never happened, I cannot observe tomorrow, I bet it will never come.

This should be a one-second video of Dawkins looking at the camera and saying "yes"

Would watching bacteria mutating to overwhelm an antibiotic count as watching evolution??

Creationist start with the conclusion and try to make the data fit their bias. Cosmologist, geologist and biologists etc. all work opposite to the creationist method.

People not understanding what a theory is and that a theory can also be a fact has gotten old, really, really old.

seriously, this alternating camera thing isn't working, so please stop trying. As for the rest, thumbs up as always.

I can hear Ken Ham now: "Dawkins calls evolution a crime!"

I really like this new "series" of Mr. Dawkins answering questions. I hope for many more.

Evidence for evolution:(this list is not exhaustive, please feel free to add anything I missed) 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry 2 Evidence from Genetics 3 Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns 4 Evidence from DNA sequencing 5 The fossil record 6 Evidence from Pseudogenes 7 Evidence from observed speciation 8 Evidence from Chromosome 2 in humans 9 Evidence from comparative anatomy 10 Nested hierarchies and classification 11 Evidence from homologous structures and divergent evolution 12 Evidence from Vestigial structures 13 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development 14 Evidence from Atavisms 15 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs 16 Evidence from Arthropod appendages 17 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes 18 Evidence from Route of the vas deferens 19 Evidence from paleontology 20 Evidence from geographical distribution of animals 21 Evidence from Island biogeography 22 Evidence from Endemism 23 Evidence from Adaptive radiations 24 Evidence from Ring Species 25 Evidence from Migration and isolation of the animals 26 Evidence from observed natural selection in the lab and in the field 27 Evidence from Antibiotic and pesticide resistance 28 Lactose intolerance in humans 29 Evidence from Nylon-eating bacteria 30 Interspecies fertility or hybridization 31 Evidence from artificial selection

Nice try, but the theory is flawed. You failed to mention the tides. They come in and then they go out. You can't explain that!

The thing that annoys me about this question is that there is no "The theory of evolution". There is the fact of evolution: Species change over time. Then there are theories as to why they do this. The most common theory being "The theory of evolution by natural selection". The theory part of that being the "by natural selection" part. During Darwings time the fact of evolution was known, tho not widely accepted. Another theory of evolution during his time was Lamarckism, that basicly worked trough "Genetic memory". So in my mind the answer to this question is. There is the fact of evolution: Species change over time. And the widely accepted theory : The theory of evolution by natural selection. Edit: Lamarckism, not tailorism. I keep getting those two words mixed up and i dont know why.

I fear that RD's lack of explanation of why we have seasons will cause more people to believe it has to do with the orbit rather than the tilt of the earth combined with the orbit. REMEMBER FOLKS, WHEN ITS WINTER IN THE NORTH, ITS SUMMER IN THE SOUTH, AND VICE VERSA

This video could have been 3 seconds long, you staring at the camera for 2 seconds, then saying yes, end video.

wow dawkins just blew my mind again. For a second, i understood what the questioner wrote in about how we can observe the earth revolving around the sun.....but after dawkins explained that we actually can NOT in fact WATCH the earth go around the sun, it makes a lot more sense to me. Never though about it that way.

Richard Dawkins:- Explains evolution and all the facts Creationist:- Sure, but were you there?

Question: Would you consider the changes in crops, adapting to their local environment or creating larger yields etc. a type of evolution?

Mr. Dawkins. I'm abit puzzled that you would say that we don't observe our earth rotate around the sun, and spin on its own axis. I believe there are multiple ways to do this without extrapolating on information about the season or night-day shiftings.

A lot of folks commenting and imagining their ignorance invalidates evolution.

"Is Evolution a Fact?" spolier yes

When i hear an ape sing as good as Connie Francis sings , then i will believe in evolution .

Absolutely brilliant explanation. Thank you.

Richard Dawkins: The Earth's spinning is just a theory. *- FOX News*

I really hope that one day they will make a video better explaining the singularity, particularly if there was no space around it how could it exist. Most of the big bang makes perfect sense but it seems with the singularity the more I struggle to understand it the faster it escapes me. If there is someone who is well versed in physics could shed some light on this it would be very much appreciated.

He looks towards the second camera, camera doesn't switch. Haha that was hilarious.

Evolutions evidence > Detectives evidence Another amazing video. Thank you Richard.

I am suprised he didnt mention the fact that evolution happens faster the bigger a population is and the faster new generations get replaced. That means you can actually observe evolution and the effects of it. Mostly microorganisms but the mutation of fruitflies etc is also very impressive

We need more contents like this on RU-vid. As we entered an environment where knowledge and resources are widely assessable and exposed, our brains are taking in and updating knowledge, data, languages and cultures much more quickly. Children born in recent decades therefore outperform in many different ways. Our brain is evolving into a golden age of its evolution through the great invention of The Internet. Would this be the next natural selection?

thanks for doing this, mr dawkins ^^

You can't observe a person aging but given a substantial ammount of time, change will become clear

Anyone else notice the cross microphone? Has RD become a closet christian?

2:19 do you like the small black&white pictures next to the door frame?

My gratitude Dr. Dawkins. I am one of your followers and have read some of your wonderful books. My greetings and appreciation. You are best of the best. I love your work. Best regards Eddie.

The day of Richard Dawkins birth March 26, from here on out should be declared Dawkins Day.

this is the biggest deflect ever

Excellent explanation.

I love the greatest show on earth. ;) And this is a good example for explaning abit of evolution. I love science and evolution. Science and progress. This is a nice channel. Gonna check it out some more!

Great video BUT one flaw: None of the scientist had actual observation of evolution taking place. All is based on hypothesis which is NOT objective science but subjective science.

I very much respect the great deal of patience this man has shown throughout the years. He has been answering basically the same questions over and over again. And still he does.

To flip a theory to a fact is an overstatement . Interpretation makes theories ,observation makes facts . There can be infinite different Interpretations but there can be only one fact to be observed at a time and a place.

i would have thought the observation of a mutating / evolving virus was proof beyond reasonable doubt of evolution. then again, peering into the microscopic can be an arduous task for normal people who don't have immediate access to it i also like to assume energy is a form of evolution, considering overtime it can change, degrade and ultimately cease to be energetic. the reaction to heat is a good example, boiling a kettle changes the structure and makes it hotter, it evolves to transfer heat.... i know, i'm being a little silly, but you understand the changes are that of observation and can be determined with a working knowledge of heat transfer. like the detective analogy, we can see little footprints showing it used to be hot, or it used to be hotter at least.

I can't say that I agree with calling evolution a "fact" but I wouldn't say that there ARE facts, in the sense of a fact being something that is 100% true, except things that are true by their own definitions and something like "I think therefore I am". But if you're aying that something is a fact in the sense that it's the most reasonable thing to say is true, then yes it is a fact. Interestingly, many things we observe in day-to-day life are supported by less evidence and are less likely to be true than evolution, so what many people say are "facts" are less reasonable to assume to be the case than evolution. Semantics is always frustrating because I find myself disagreeing with you in some sense, but people who oppose evolution using the "it's just a theory" argument (if you can even call it an argument) will interpret my disagreement as bolstering their claim, when I couldn't disagree more with them. So many arguments hinge on the exact words you pick, and it's especially frustrating when the person you're arguing with has misinterpreted definitions of words, or outright says that they mean things that they don't.

Theory of evolution is a very wide concept with a lot of holes scientists fill with quick jumping to conclusions. It became such a mess that it will take a long time to differentiate ideas from facts, if ever.

Unfortunately, the editing is still distracting. I'm a video editor and I can't help noticing that the lip sync is a few frames out.

Amazing!

I really hope Richard Dawkins stays alive along enough to witness his beloved theory of evolution blow up.

Absolutely scientists are like detectives,they can look up and prove evolution.Please make more of these videos

more frequent videos please

This is a wonderful explanation.

I can prove evolution very clearly in a sentence. Men and women develop from the womb, We all start with a tail; not a tale. The tail isn't present upon birth. We lose the tail because tails are more useful aquatically where we came from. Now we walk on land no need for tails; just our mind and tales of what our minds conceive.

The answer is YES.

There has to be a hell if I can stumble over this video

A matter of great importance, especially when talking to creationists, good question.

Day and night are a facts that we are living and seeing the results of them Unlike evelotion.

If evolution is a fact then I would like to know the answer to the following question: how does the theory of evolution explains the problem of arrival to the 'selectability state'? Selectability state in the evolution of some biological system or structure is such an arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA which contains information for functional system or structure that offers a selectable benefit to an organism. If something offers selectable benefit then, of course, it will be SELECTED. But, before SELECTION happens, we have one huge problem. What we observe in biology is structural intradependence and this intradependence predetermines necessity for a specific DNA information. Meaning, it is NOT the environment of an organism which predetermines DNA information that will be selected, but an already existing DNA information that codes for an already existing structure or a system. Examples: a) intron-exon gene structure predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to rearrange the nascent pre-messenger RNA transcript in which introns are removed and exons are joined together. This information codes for 'rna splicing machinery'. b) structure of egg cell predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to initiate the development of a new individual organism. This information codes for a specific 3D arrangement of molecules that is called - a sperm cell. c) heart structure predetermines that a specific DNA information is needed in order to produce structure with the ability to prevent the back flow of blood from the ventricle to the atrium when blood is pumped out of the ventricle. This information codes for structure that is called - a heart valve. When DNA information for these structures exists, then of course - it will be SELECTED. But how would you find this predetermined information via random nucleotide rearrangement process(mutations), if only 1,000 nucleotides can be arranged into 10^602 combinations. Let us for e.g. consider the information needed to build a human heart. If we assume that only 8.2 percent of human DNA is functional(1), and given the ratio between the heart-weight and body-weight in humans, there is approximately 1,230,000 nucleotides representing the information to build a human heart. This nucleotides can be arranged into 10^740,000 possible combinations. Given the Reidhaar-Olson&Sauer ratio of protein functionality, where for a protein 92 AA long, with 10^122 possible AA combinatios, there is only 1 in every 10^63 functional sequence, that means that only 1 in every 10^382,000 combination contains information for a functional human heart. Using fast mutation rates, total number of organisms that have ever lived on Earth, length of genomes and so forth... published extreme upper limit estimates puts the maximum number of mutations at 10^50. Now, even if there were 10^50 selection steps(small improvements) in evolution, even if every selection step were advantageous to an organism and even if all mutational resources were spent on search for functional heart, the probability to find the information to build a human heart is 10^381,950. This is like winning the lottery jackpot 54,560 times in a row. Now, we now that in everyday life, if a person believes that it is possible to win the jackpot 'only' 10 times in a row, this person would be called crazy. So, by what process did evolution arrived to the selectability state and find functional information in the space of 10^382,000 combinations with only 10^50 resources available? (1)www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-only-8-2-human-dna-functional-02083.html

Very good video, Professor Dawkins :-)

Notice how he talks about the detective deducing who the murderer is by looking at evidence of the aftermath like fingerprints, but he doesn't think that when looking at the universe, it's like if the detective said the crime was committed by no one.

I don't like how he said "happened a long time ago". I know that Richard Dawkins is obviously aware that Evolution isn't something that "happened" at one point in time, in the past, that it's a gradual, constant process which was and is happening, slowly, but there's bound to be people who would misunderstand what he said and people who would abuse that quote.

Thank you Dawkins 🖒🖒🖒🖒❤

isnt the changing seasons more to do with the angle of the earth?

Your donation page is broken. Nothing happens when I try to donate via paypal. I will check back later and try again

Facts annoy creationists and conservatives in general.

"The fool has said in his heart that there is no God".

I'd love to see Dawkins with a Darwin beard

I think the “only a theory” argument is so popular because of the unfortunate disparity between the common definition of “theory” in American pop culture, and the working definition of the word in science.

The fact that the earth revolves around the sun was a theory. Then we observed it and realized that it was and is and will always be fact. Evolution on the other hand remains in the first stage of theory.

A hypothesis is still a hypothesis

The problem is in the conflation of the term hypothesis with that of theory, plain and simple.

Haha, thanks for answering another question. I would have thought the answer was obvious, but apparently it wasn't.

Evolution is not a scientific idea its a world view. All of the evidence used by the evolution theorist is better used and more plausibly applied to the creation worldview.

so the scientist wants us to believe without seeing, the irony.

Seriously needs the foundation media manager to get their act together. First interviews conducted by a guy while on his phone now this weird 2 angle shoot. This is basic stuff but it obscures an interesting topic with rank amateur production.

Much better editing in this one

Believing in evolution is like believing in god. Prove me wrong

If you believe in evolution there is a 100% chance that you will take the mark of the beast.

Dude Richard Dawkins wasn't a jerk and answered the question quite well

Aaaaggh the switching camera views! Otherwise awesome videos, keep them coming!

Evolution is a myth, d0t c0/\/\

Could there possibly be a "end product" of evolution, a species that is perfectly adapted to its environment? If that is the case, would every species evolve to be exactly like that one species? Would there be just one species in the end because to be like it would have the biggest advantage?

Why Dawkins didn't say the fact that we can observe evolution. We can observe the natural selection in petri dishes on bacteria, viruses just as every other microorganisms and we can experiment the artifical(i mean human made) selection like choosing the best plants for seeding the field or mate the only best dogs to have better race, or only use bull which have the most meat for mating. We will observe the natural selection but it takes time and the theory itself is very new when you consider the living things evolving for billions of years. (im not native speaker so dont mind the grammar mistakes.

Mr. Dawkins, could you put legends in english on your next videos, please?

This video would have been so much better had there been another camera angle each time Mr Dawkins looked in another direction, maybe even have the other camera with a much brighter hue so the colors were more vivid, then back to the other camera with a more realistic natural color, and so on and so forth.

The microphone under the sweater at first looked like a cross. That was scary.

I really like those analogies because there are many people who thinks something can be true only if they see that thing in front of their eyes. We didn't see evolution happening, but we have the clues that leads to us the to marks left by evolution in the fóssil record and, modern animais that still carry vestigials traits from their ancestors.

I can't believe he has to explain this. Are people really that distrusting of science that they can't just simply realize that this isn't a metaphysical argument?

*So nobody ever saw the earth spinning or revolving around the sun, damn why i had to believe all the astronomers*

The camera angle change thing is awkward as hell. I know, it doesn't affect the message, but, by being distracting, it does engage a part of my mind/brain I'd rather dedicate to what you're actually saying.

Good proposition

The first camera seems to have better color and a better angle. Theres simply no reason to have two cameras when hes just sitting and talking in one place. It distracts from what hes actually saying and loses a bit of your thought process. I vote like everyone else to stick with that first camera. I'm not sure why anyone thought it'd be a good idea to alternate, honestly.

PERFECT!!!

"You can't observe a fish come out of water and become a land animal", I have seen it, a mudskipper.

when people say theory like its bad. its not. but it means to be a theory you have gotten the 5 stars,the medel that says I'm a really smart and possible reality that science can't disprove so far.

Richard Dawkins thank you so much sir you have have helped humanity in all possible ways to grow and develop,this work is indeed a great.

I would like to know how evolution gave me the capacity to see the subconscious of people.

I'm a bit of a dunce at this science malarky but can't the planet moving round the sun and spinning be observed by space cameras or by being in a space capsule or space station perhaps eating some space food or playing space cards?

Isn't it fun when the creationists say, "That's not evolution, that's just a minor change" ?

Isnt this dude like over 70 or something ? Still sharp as a Razor

We do observe that earth is spinning , what do you think satellites are meant for ?

I know that there is evidence for microevolution (adaptation within species), such as finch beaks, but what is the scientific evidence for macroevolution (evolution from one life form to a completely different kind of life form)?

Brilliant!

I always point people to the e coli long term evolution experiments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment