Richard Dawkins clears up the misunderstanding of Evolution that is all too common: If we descended from Chimpanzees, then why are there still Chimpanzees? Dawkins explains that we DID NOT descend from Chimpanzees—we both share a common ancestor.
Dawkins: We did not descend from Chimpanzees
Comments
(49 Responses)
funni, i was thinking about this just yesterday. please try to stay outta my brain!
yeah i agree – cats didn’t descend from Lions they’re just in the same family.
How is it possible that people don’t understand this VERY basic idea?? By the way, Dawkins is beginning to look more and more like your portrait of him – You must have had some prior knowledge of how his face would develop in the short term…
Don´t you just love that man…
I would very much like to see the left side of the descendent line one day.
Hey Coops/Phillis,
I’m in the US and somewhat confused about what Derren is up to and has coming up next. I know he’s doing the Enigma shows right now but when does he have new tv shows coming out?
Isn’t there a special or series coming out where Derren travels to Russia and other places to debunk people claiming to have supernatural powers?
Thanks,
Mike
ps, Oh – so I’m not guilty of threadjacking here – great video of Sir Dawkins!
Hi Mike,
The new TV shows for ‘The Event’ start on 09/09/09.
The Engima London run of the tour ends 25/07/09.
Cool. I knew about the common ancestor thing, but not about which species branched off where. Maybe that explain why, though I like orang-utans most of all great apes, I’m much better at understanding chimp body language than I am at understanding theirs. More closely related, and all.
This makes it look even more surreal … they should def. not have place a pic there of a modern human being, 2009 … Now most will not believe it ofcourse, even those who sort of did, will start to have serious doubts …… I myself am doubtfull in this area as well .. but as they did not find any other proof yet, or explanation … I myself just dont bother where we came from … but I still have the idea that there might not be a descending from humans the way they want to see it … Maybe we do come from outerspace .. who knows … it’s not impossible.
Not that it ever will matter whatever has been the case I think. interesting, but that’s about it.
Who here thinks Ancestor’s Tale is the BEST BOOK EVER???
Not that I myself dont see any resemblence between us and chimps and urangoetangs though … Urangoetangs do have a bit the eyes of childeren with Down syndrom, or oriental. Less european.
And looking into their eyes … yes, lots of recognition although I see that with lots of animals … the nonverbal closing up to eachother ..
It’s disgusting how people treat our ancestors et al.
Not all humans might descent from the same apes or whatever they might come from… another way of looking into it .. There are distinct differences .. not just one specie it seems ..
If only Dicky would just restrict himself to such excellent evolutionary biology (a subject which he is so clearly an authority on), I could respect the pompous self-promoting twat a whole lot more.
CaptFrantic: would you like everyone to be restricted as to what topics they can express opinions on, or just the famous ones?
@ScreamingGreenConure – Mainly just the ones who disingenuously use science as a skirt to hide behind when promoting their own rabid and ill-considered strawmaning atheistic (which in actuality is just anti-theistic) agenda. Just saying.
I loathe strawman arguments with a passion …
call me a crazy american, but i think dickie is kinda cute. (altho dont tell him i said so!)
He’s a bit abrupt, not really “rabid.” If he was threatening violence I would understand why you’d have a problem, but it looks like what you are saying is that you don’t like some (or all? I don’t know) of his arguments, or maybe what he is arguing about, so you don’t think he should be allowed to express viewpoints. To be honest, you sound a little rabid yourself, there. You could always just not read God Delusion or watch his documentaries, whichever of them has you all riled up.
@CaptFrantic are his theories really “ill-considered”. His opposition are people who want you (and all of us) dead in the name of their God. If he is “rabid” – what is someone like Abu Hamza?
@ScreamingGreenConure – You’re right when you say that I only despise *some* (maybe most) of his anti-theistic arguments. Of course he has every right in the world to critique *religion* just as much as the next man. My objection to Dicky and his methods is that he’s completely muddied the water by spreading the propaganda that atheism is scientific, which it clearly (in my opinion) isn’t.
“The God Delusion” could have been a fantastic book if he’d only been more … objective? A less disparaging title might have helped too. I concede that a lot of his points in the book, particularly when he expresses his theories about how religion “evolved” alongside man’s intellectual and social evolution are extremely interesting and well thought out. Pretending and promoting the fallacious idea that atheism = science is, however, unforgivable. It’s clearly just another belief system (or disbelief if you like). Take a look at the army of his disciples on youtube to get an idea of the widespread and negative effect he has had on the debate of “spirituality vs science”.
Anyway, I guess there’s a time and place for such debate as we’ve strayed a bit OT of the excellent subject matter of this article (I accept full responsibility for instigating it hehe). If you like you can click my name to go to my blog to read my ongoing (admittedly rabid) refutation of Dawkins’ brand of atheism. I’d be pleased to debate you in the comments. If not then no worries. Peace and Namaste. =P
Also, is it not just a little bit hypocritical to call someone a “pompous, self-promoting twat” and dismiss every argument they make (I might be wrong there, but you didn’t specify exactly what arguments you think suck, so I am guessing you hate them all?) as “rabid and ill-considered,” then say you loathe strawman arguments? I’m just saying that seems kind of like a double standard.
@CaptFrantic…i think you are very welcome here to give your scientifically well considered facts about what is disturbing you so much about Dawkins….if not, you might be considered simply jealous.
I guess if you hate him because you don’t think he should be allowed to put forth the argument that atheism is scientific when you don’t think that’s true, that’s… honest, at least? I was wondering if he’d killed your dog or something. I’m not sure expressing an opinion that you personally disagree with can be fairly called “unforgivable”, though.
Personally, I’d call taking the absence of something that has never been shown to be present as a null hypothesis pretty scientific — though I’d call it agnosticism, instead of atheism. There’s really not much proof for the existence of a god (or of several gods) as something concrete, while there is a lot of evidence pointing to its existence as a social construct.
That isn’t to say that one can’t both be a theist and have a scientific mindset, but it would seem to me that a person subscribing to both would have to keep the religion separate from the science, so to speak, if they are to accept the religious concept as absolute truth.
I do have some problems with prof. Dawkins’ straight keep-to-the-facts point of view — I love fantasies and stories, even if they are only make-believe — but I don’t see why people get so riled up about him. He has some very good points, and he’s good at explaining them.
Berber Anna: IIRC, Dawkins calls some things atheist that other people might term agnostic. I guess it’s just personal preference as to how you define the terms you’re using. I don’t like to use “agnostic” as to many people it seems to mean you just never consider the subject, but I think most (if not all) atheists I know could be considered agnostic in that if new evidence of a god came to light, they’d reconsider their stance.
@Berber Anna – “Personally, I’d call taking the absence of something that has never been shown to be present as a null hypothesis pretty scientific — though I’d call it agnosticism, instead of atheism” … Indeed. Can I use that? It sums up my position with consummate clarity.
I really want to get off my soap box regarding Dawkins and indeed I will (here in this comment section I mean =P). However, I simply must defend myself against some of the above comments. With all due respect (where deserved), it would appear that there’s a widespread misunderstanding of what a strawman argument actually is.
@ScreamingGreenConure – “I guess if you hate him because you don’t think he should be allowed to put forth the argument that atheism is scientific when you don’t think that’s true, that’s… honest, at least?” … Purely in the interests of representing myself fairly, I never said I “hate” Dicky (implying some irrational nastiness), I merely despise him (implying a profound lack of respect) for disregarding scientific objectivity.
Also, I have *never* said that I don’t think he should be allowed to say what ever he wants to say. I’m not being funny at all now but that was a *very* good example of how to make a straw man argument. I lol’ed at the dog quip though =D.
@phillis – “If [Dicky] is “rabid” – what is someone like Abu Hamza?” … psychotically rabid?
Sorry, when you called him a pompous twat I figured that counted as a strong enough dislike to class it as “hate.” My mistake. You despise him and think he should not talk about these things, but that’s NOT the same as saying he shouldn’t be allowed to say the things he shouldn’t talk about. Is this better? I’m trying hard, here.
@ScreamingGreenConure … I thought I was being perfectly clear tbh but I’ll try and lay it out in black and white.
Strong dislike? Yeah I guess I can be fairly accused of those feelings towards him.
I think Dicky Dawkins has every right to say *anything* he wants. I think I have every right to criticise him and his views and hold him to account for them and the huge effects his privileged high profile soap box affords them. I wish he would shut up about religion (or ideally be more objective as he could do enormous good) because I believe he is currently doing enormous damage on various fronts. I do NOT want to ram his book down his throat to silence him … well, just a bit maybe =P
Remember when we were talking about strawman arguments. Good times. (Sorry man, I really couldn’t resist that one hehe)
Now, I’m a card-carrying atheist and I thrilled when I read the title for this video because I frequently get mobbed by Alpha Course recruits in my classroom who’ve just been armed with the ‘why aren’t all chimps humans then?’ rhetorical brain-teaser and I was hoping that this video would serve as a handy little full-stop on that argument.
Unfortunately all we have here is the same kind of flannelling that we are so quick to accuse theists of. Dawkins points at an intersection between a couple of blue lines and says that this is our common ancestor. Then he points at some other blue lines and stresses the point that WE ARE ALL COUSINS but he does not deliver anything in the way of genetic or anthropological evidence in order to validate his point!
It’s like watching a weather report without a map!
How on earth am I supposed to use this to counter any Creationist argument when it doesn’t even convince me?!
Having had a quick read of the comments in this thread I have to note with some alarm that I’m seeing the exact same form of confirmation bias that Derren explores in his book when he discusses religious conformity and spiritualism. We want to believe that Richard Dawkins is telling us facts so we absorb them as such, without engaging with this piece of video on any level of substantial criticism.
Of course, some people just like to have a good old pop at the comment next to them to kill half an hour.
Fosca: I’m sure the map he’s pointing at, as well as the museum exhibit it seems to be a part of, explain the issue in some more detail. I accept this explanation as fact, because I am already aware of the genetic evidence — I just wasn’t quite certain where the different branches split off, and now I know. The branching points are subordinate info to the main theory — the tree itself — of which I was already aware and which I already see as credible, so I don’t see much reason to question what Dawkins is telling us here.
WELL – I thoroughly enjoyed the above
I agree with all comments made (Is that taking a non committal approach to the debate?) . Seriously, it’s how we learn, develop opinions and draw conclusions about beliefs, ex-beliefs, and non beliefs. There is a place for Atheism and theism despite what one may think of the other. The problem with Dawkins is that he is a high profile individual, so when expressing opinions (Often strong) on very sensitive areas of debate, celebrities can be viewed as preachy, arrogant or dictatorial. I’m sure that when at home he is a soft, and cuddlwey wunny babbit, and not some mad professor, complete with middle of the night shreaking and hair pulling while plotting to bring religion down to it’s knees.
Try telling that to a Christian;
“What, so…that blue line is our common ancestor? Oh I see, that explains everything. Religion is all a bunch of hooey! Thanks science!”
So we’re “sure” that the map and the exhibit that is “seems” to be part of explains the issue. Call me old fashioned but I’d much rather the qualified academic who is speaking in the video explain the issue. Otherwise why make a video called “Why are there still chimpanzees?”? If a close up of the map would illuminate our easily-misled minds then why not show us a close-up of the map?
Of course you “don’t see much reason to question Dawkins” because in your instance he’s preaching to the choir, but my point was, and still is, that this video, despite it’s title and the acumen of it’s speaker, does not present anything at all that resembles a convincing argument! Much less an explanation as to why chimps aren’t us! So it’s a useless challenge to a theists anti-evolutionary beliefs and only serves as a piece of audio-visual toffee for people who have already bought this argument wholesale. There is no empirical, or scientific data in this video.
Its title should be “Dawkins points at a display board and tries really hard not to scream ‘the bible is for morons’ into the camera”.
@CaptFrantic…i think you are mixing two things up…that´s religion and scientific talks by Dawkins….Where i think he is absolutely objective when talking about scientific matter….and at other times when the subject is atheism he is objective….
What you say is, Dawkins talking about Religion is doing no one good…care to explain? It´s alright if that´s your opinion but explain how it is doing more harm then good.
Well, it’s not a piece that could be used in a debate, no — but if someone’s genuinely wondering whether humans descended from chimpanzees (not using it as a sound bite, but, you know, actually wondering what the ‘family tree’ looks like from an evolutionary point of view), then this is a proper explanation. ‘See, this is the family tree, these are the subdivisions, and we’re here’. Straightforward answer to a straightforward question. When I saw it, I assumed that’s who it was targeted at — people who are genuinely wondering, who will either say ‘oh thanks, now I see’, or have their curiosity sparked and do some googling for the relevant evidence.
I suppose you COULD also see it as targeted at the people who need pounding with arguments because they’re not genuinely asking, they’re looking for a debate — if it is, then yes, it is a bit scarce on the evidence front.
There’s a middle ground between ‘the choir’ and ‘the antis’, though. I still think that’s who he’s answering the question for.
CaptFrantic you can accuse me of all the straw men you want – but I don’t know you. All I have to go on is what you write down to express your views. When you use language like “pompous twat” about someone I am guessing you have not met, of course I will assume that you hate them or at the very least harbour massive amounts of bitterness towards them.
When you say “Mainly just the ones who disingenuously use science as a skirt to hide behind when promoting their own rabid and ill-considered strawmaning atheistic (which in actuality is just anti-theistic) agenda” when asked if you think people should be restricted as to what topics they express views on, of course I am going to think you want someone silenced.
If you do not want people to think that you think these things, don’t say them – say something more like your last comment, perhaps, which is a little less ambiguous.
I still don’t know what it is you dislike about him, other than you wish he wouldn’t discuss atheism. I do find it jaw-dropping that you’d express that much dislike for a man who writes books that don’t advocate violence.
Fosca – I hear what you’re saying… in terms of impirical evidence there’s not much meat on the bones of the proposition that humans and chimps share an ancestor.
This one is marginally better, as it deals with empirical data… though we only have Dawkin’s word that that’s what it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esmvg
But if you have to look at comparative anatomy for evidence, barring the prognathus face and a butt that saggs in an ugly clump resembling chronic hemherroids and give or take 3 feet in height and some all over body hair, it’s quite easy to spot the similarities between chimps and humans (some more than others!). Showing skeletons side by side wouldn’t add much to what everyone already knows.
@Fosca: he explained them in great detail in his book The Ancestor’s Tale, which I think would be hard to convey on short video like this.
dont you all know we come from reptiles…geez, haha
Well, at least according to David Icke, most people in power still ARE reptiles, right?
@ScreamingGreenConure I’m afraid that your insistence upon misrepresenting me qualifies you to talk to the hand. Knock yourself out. If you can’t distinguish between humourous banter and clearly stated views then a reasonable discussion with you is obviously impossible. Life’s too short to waste time on wilful ignorance and butt-hurt defensiveness.
@ReligiousMarie “… I think you are mixing two things up…that´s religion and scientific talks by Dawkins”
Not at all. Have you read his “The God Delusion”? I find it hard to believe that anyone could come away from that book without having gained the clear impression that Dicky is (incorrectly imo) equating atheism (a system of belief / unbelief) with scientific rigour (a system which demands concrete evidences and proofs). Allow me to put it like this, if theism might be described as a scientifically unfounded belief in the existence of a higher being, then atheism is the scientifically unfounded belief that there exists *NO* higher being (caps used for emphasis only). I believe this questionable assertion that atheism = science is a highly dangerous dogma (just as dangerous as the claim that theism is scientific).
“What you say is, Dawkins talking about Religion is doing no one good…care to explain?”
It’ll be hard in the space available here but I’ll certainly try. Allow me to start with the title of his “book”. Could it even be more condescending and inflammatory. Trust me when I say that the condescension only gets worse in the books content. Much worse. Does he really wish to win theists over with this approach or is it more likely that they will (justifiably) be deeply offended and become more entrenched in their religiosity? In one fell swoop he’s managed to distance and alienate the very people he is (purportedly) trying to reach. I used to be a full on born again so trust me, I have a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about here. The truth is that theists are NOT all crazy brain-dead atheist haters who want them to burn in hell. NOTHING could be further from the truth. The vast majority of theists (I guess I can only speak with authority about Christians though) are lovely people. A little misguided maybe but certainly not deluded. The truly dangerous fundamentalist nutters make up a tiny minority.
I have much, much more but I’ve reached “wall of text” status now so please allow me to encourage you to watch the following you tube video in which esteemed (and moderate) atheist and scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson gives Dicky the gentle smackdown which I wish I had the calm nature to deliver. Dicky is suitably erudite and hilariously witty in his response to be fair and utters the F word. Hilarity ensues. XD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxff0k_TEzI
CaptFrantic – with due respect the strawman representation is yours. Dawkins himself within “the God Delusion” has a 7 point scale where 1 is total unquestioning belief and 7 is total unquestioning disbelief. He categorises himself at 6 and a half, where he doesn’t completely rule out divine intervention, but he has yet to see any remotely compelling evidence. Thus the teapot, which wasn’t his analogy but Bertrand Russell’s. The point of the teapot analogy which you appear to have totally missed is it’s possible to make up anything under the sun, but we demand evidence prior to belief for everything barring god.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you don’t impliment that scientific rigour you wind up with such examples of science gone haywire as medieval bestiaries passing for natural history, replete with dragons, unicorns, beavers which bite off their own nads when persued by hunters and hyenas which are a genetic cross between a cat and a dog, which were all designed by the lord our god to teach us moral lessons.
Oh well. If you’re going to be rude, carry on.
flapjack – You’ve obviously taken the time to look at my blog so thanks for that. I’ll have to answer you from that context so for anyone else that’s following this who hasn’t wanted to check it out, some of this will seem a bit disconnected.
“He categorises himself at 6 and a half …” I stated that fact in my blog so how have I straw-manned him?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – I agree. I think it applies to atheists and theists alike.
I’m aware that the teapot argument was coined by Russell. Other than an issue of incorrect accreditation it makes no difference. Dicky still used and heavily endorsed the argument in his book (thanks for pointing that out though I’ll make an addendum to the entry).
“The point of the teapot analogy which you appear to have totally missed …” – I haven’t missed the point of the analogy he endorses at all. I covered all of that clearly in the blog entry. I can only suggest that you read it again.
“… beavers which bite off their own nads …” – *wince* … dude … no-one needs to hear that! =P
CaptFrantic – Thanks for the feedback. OK, i grant you that we are all agnostics to some degree… i just take issue with this bit from your blog…
“If you have no hard evidence to back up a claim then it’s deceitful, closed minded and ultimately downright dangerous to claim that science can provide an unequivocal “answer”. ”
I don’t think that is what Dawkins is proposing… thus the strawman element. As already pointed out, he leans towards highly improbable, but stops short of “impossible”.
OK perhaps i’m splitting hairs, but as Dawkins himself says, you can still estimate the odds of something existing based on what evidence there is, and science does this all the time. It’s not a simple 50/50 split, anymore than dragons, unicorns or trolls are, for the reason that aside from the stories there is zero concrete evidence for any of them. The clangers may live on the moon in another galaxy far far away, as may Darth Vader, but if you had to ask whether I thought their existance was a 50/50 proposition, I’d have to say that the chances of George Lucas or Oliver Postgate having created a documentary based on a new scientific or anthropological discovery seems pretty remote. Vastly improbable but not impossible. I think that’s a fairer assessment of what Dawkins is saying.
And if you want to see those beavers biting themselves in all their medieval glory, look it up in the Bodlean Bestiary
@CaptFrantic…to be short and clear and without wasting text-space:…
´´i knew you´d love Dawkins deep down´´
@ReligiousMarie – hahaha … all he needs is a big snuggle hug … because even Dicky needs love. =D
@flapjack – It really pains me to say this … *intellectual meltdown* … on that particular strawman point, to the letter of what I wroted you are technically absolutely correct. Shit! Wait a minute … *punches self in mouth* OW! Hey! FFS … I wasn’t ready! Seriously though yeah, on that score I will have to recant (a bit). However I must add this (and I did mention it in the blog to be fair) you still come away from the book with the distinct impression that Dicky’s a full on committed atheist … and that science has all the goods to back him up. I will temper and correct that in a future post. Honest, I will! I stand by everything else though … I think. =P
Concerning Oliver Postgate Clangers etc (made me laugh for real) everything you’ve mentioned there still ultimately boils down to belief systems and that’s the important distinction to keep in mind. I know it seems like I’m being pedantic but I really think that the distinction between scientific certainty and systems of belief is crucially important. I know it only seems like a stupid philosophical point and I’m not sure how I can express it clearly enough so that it matters a damn. I’m a bit wasted atm to be honest as last night’s insomnia has totally caught up with me and I just want to lie down and get some zeds. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s OK to say that we can be fairly certain in *belief* that any named “god” (Thor, The God of Christ, Zeus etc) can be reasonably dismissed as highly f**king unlikely BUT … and this is my big point for my future posts … you cannot use that to say that there is NO higher being, and THAT is what atheism (NO Gods) represents. (Shit but this takes so many words to express).
I’m not sure if I’m being in any way cogent now as the invisible man is behind me pushing down on my eyelids so I’ll have to leave it there for now. I’ll be willing to debate more on this later but I really, really gotta go get some shut-eye. Meh.
BTW I apologise if I appear to have totally hijacked the comments and if it seems as though I’ve just been pimping my blog. In my defence, all I can say is that I did try to back out gracefully but you people wouldn’t sodding let me.
Oh before I go, ScreamingGreenConure, can we both forget all that stuff from before. I was a bit harsh and I’m sure you had reason for homing in on that freedom of speech thing but I just found it highly frustrating. If we can put all that shit down and move on maybe we can debate more about the real issues .. if you want.
Damn I’m getting juicy now … that’s a sure sign that I should go get some zeds. =S zzzzzzzzz
No worries at all – I’m a massive free speech advocate, I’m afraid it’s one of my hot buttons. Makes me come over all funny, you know?
Awwww- don’t go getting soft on me now CaptFrantic! Come on everyone… group hug
BTW, in case you thought I was kidding about the medieval beavers, here’s the webpage…
http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast152.htm
YAY … group hug … someone get on the phone to Dawkins! Get in here Dicky!
(Final word on blog. Addendum added. Intellectual pride slowly recovering. I think I’ll live.)
I find it rather depressing that Dick Dawkins feels the need to point out something so elementary, because anyone who thinks that the Theory of Evolution says that Man descended from monkeys clearly hasn’t much understanding of the T o E. And that’s the point, no?…that anti-scientific cretins propose strawmen that well-intentioned boffins like Dawkins can’t resist having a go at, and all they accomplish is to legitimize a position that deserved nothing but contempt.
Please forgive a Post Script to my earlier comment, but there’s a quote from Sam Clemens that fits well here: It’s not what we descend from that concerns me so much as what we descend to.