Richard Dawkins: 'Who Was the First Human?' (ForaTv)

Biologist and author Richard Dawkins presents a thought experiment to explain human origins. Following each generation backwards across millions of years of evolution, Dawkins shows why no species -- including homo sapiens -- can truly be said to have a "first" ancestor.

-----

What Is Reality? Richard Dawkins talks with Henry Finder. Presented in collaboration with the New Yorker Festival, on October 1, 2011.

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and the author of the Times best-selling books The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, and The Greatest Show on Earth. His new book, The Magic of Reality, an illustrated science guide for adults and young people, comes out in October. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and of the Royal Society of Literature.

Henry Finder is the editorial director of The New Yorker.

[crazyjake]

this is probably the best video Ive come across so far which explains evolution easy enough for religious people

[rabeo]

i swear i have an obsession of going onto these and scrolling down to watch the intense arguments and discussions unravel

[Prophiscient]

The real reason is that there is never one "first" of any new species. There is never a point where one animal suddenly gives birth to the "first" child that belongs to a different species. That wouldn't work, because that lonely "first" would never be able to find a mating partner.
Evolution works on populations. When populations split, they slowly develop in different ways. The differences only become clear when you compare those two separate groups many generations later.

[Suzie]

I love Dawkins because he's a classic British gent, and he's up there with Darwin and all of the other great scientists.

[violadude]

That growing up analogy to evolution was awesome.

[spaveevo]

its like asking what was the very first dog.  A wolf never gave birth to a chow.  its just a gradual change over time and now we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs. People understand that but for some reason some people cant understand humans evolved the same way just like any other species.

[jakeyandhisbass]

Professor Dawkins, with incredible scientific insight! I like hearing talk more about science than religion :/ it's a much more pleasant change.

[MarxistKnight]

That's what I think is absolutely amazing about evolutionary biology, something that is far more beautiful and awe-inspring than some creator: My 180million-great grandfather was LITERALLY a fish. What's more, he would have been the 180million-great grandfather of every other human (and many other species of primates) too! We are all related

[Sporemaniac]

Yes, you have a point. It will never stop, but because of MUCH smaller environmental stress that, say, 500 years ago, when there was still a lot of diseases than today, the evolution of our species has significantly slowed down, to say the least.

[jasontrail]

Gr8 explanation. i love how he explains stuff. im a teacher myself so i love how he tries to make it look so simple to grasp

[inertiaMS]

it's like asking where the red starts within a rainbow, at which exact point do you truly consider the orange and red mixture either an orange or red, both have their classification, but when they are graduated together the definition is blurry.

[MaDrung]

It's not about picking sides like you'r ein some kind of war, but rather in being open to new ideas and evidence that give you more understanding upon which you can give percentuental judgement. Nothing is ever 100% sure.

[Prophiscient]

The problem is that people think put labels on things that change gradually over time.
There was never a "baby" that suddenly changed into a "toddler" and there was never a "teenager" that suddenly turned into an "adult". We roughly know what those words mean, but e.g. "toddlers" don't really exist. That is just a label for older "babies" that can't be labeled as "adults" yet.
With species it's the same. We categorize and label life forms that seem to be in different groups, but it's all life.

[KunChien]

i was just about writing the same, but i see, you explained it all allready...

[Ropepope]

This is true, certainly. But the concept of species is also subject to various critique from the philosophical field of science. This is mainly what I meant with the species problem. Jody Hey, an evolutionary biologist, for example has written extensively on the subject.

Regardless, I agree that the categorisation of species work as an efficient generalisation in the pragmatic sense. It's just the good few philosophical implications that follow which make the topic a whole lot more interesting.

[therealjordiano]

ah that was awesome, i really think this guy's great at explaining and things, an inspiration

[Prophiscient]

- "I have no gripe with evolution, but you're not really thinking consistently, are you?"

No, I just understand how it works and you don't.

- "If there never was a first human, and yet our n-th ancestor was a fish, then our ancestor wasn't really a fish either, right?"

Right! Exactly!

[Cleombrotus]

Des, what part of "inert matter" don't you understand?

[chype]

I love his point about gradual change and the way a human grows. Perfect answer to some of Ray Comfort's silly questions. Not that I think Ray would listen though.

[Prophiscient]

-"If life started from a single living being. Why do we have so many species?"

The question is not why, but how., and the answer to that question is "through evolution, " because the theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for the diversity of life.

A nice example of what evolution can do in a relatively short time is the fact that Brussels sprouts, cauliflowers, broccoli and cabbages are all cultivated variations of the wild cabbage plant, which still exists.