शैडोइंग अभ्यास: "Richard Dawkins & Sean Faircloth in Conversation" - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

अभ्यास मोड चुनें

हर मोड पूरी स्क्रीन का अभ्यास कक्ष खोलता है।

471 वाक्य

यदि वाक्य बहुत छोटे या लंबे हों, तो समायोजित करने के लिए Edit पर क्लिक करें।

Because he's someone who, shall we say, is noteworthy in the media,

it is sometimes forgotten his heritage as a pure scientist.

I have an acquaintance at the University of Texas, a very prominent scientist in their own right,

and they were doing some research before introducing our next guest, and he said that when he did research,

he found that there was no other living scientist cited as much as Professor Richard Dawkins.

So in addition to being a great explainer of science to citizens throughout the world, he is a true stellar scientist himself.

So for our conversation, we welcome, without further ado, Professor Richard Dawkins.

Thank you.

I think I'm...

Is this mic working okay?

Folks in the back and above can hear me with this.

So we're going to do a few minutes of questions between Professor Dawkins and myself, and then we're going to, after that's over, turn it over to audience questions,

And then, as I mentioned, afterwards, we'll have the reception.

So thank you, Professor Dawkins, for coming, first of all.

Really, I personally appreciate it, and I know the people here do.

I wanted to talk to you about a few things about science and about your book, your most recent book, or at least the first question has to do with your most recent book,

Appetite for Wonder.

And in that book, there was something, especially from the viewpoint of education in America, I was curious about.

And you said, and I'm going to quote, you're talking about your education.

You said, it was really only the tutorial system that educated me.

And I must say, that was remarkable, given that you've had, I guess, a little bit of success in science.

I want to know, you know, what was this mechanism?

What was it about?

I mean, I come from, I'm a lawyer, and from that background, we have the Socratic method, where the professor says, you know, Mr. Faircloth, what about the torts rule of what have you?

And you have to be ready, stand ready to answer

but I wasn't quite as familiar with the tutorial process and I'm curious,

one, how that's different from other methods of education in the British system

but then also you have a lot of experience both teaching

and visiting here in America and how you'd compare and contrast

that with American and maybe are there ways we might be able to institute something similar here.

First, is this microphone working?

Well, first of all, can I compliment you on that speech, Sean?

I mean, that was absolutely a fabulous speech.

And I just want to say how fully I support this initiative.

I'm not American, but I love this country,

and I think that everything that this campaign is working for is entirely what we should be, what the rest of the world,

actually, will look to America to do.

The constitution of this country is admired and envied envied around the world, and it is a secular constitution.

And somehow, in recent years, it's gone astray from that, from the vision of the founding fathers.

Quite recently, because as Sean said, even Barry Goldwater was a staunch,

stout defender of the separation of church and state, and it's a very recent phenomenon, this getting astray from that.

Now, the tutorial system, it's a very expensive, extravagant system.

You have one student and one teacher for an hour together.

It's now slightly becoming more like two students or even three.

When I did it, it was nearly always just one -to -one.

And it suited me hugely.

I had the discipline of going into the library for a week with a reading list

that I was given the previous week and learning up a subject,

looking at the original research literature in the library and becoming, in effect, at the age of 19,

whatever I was, a world authority on this extremely narrow...

And so are my colleagues at the same time because we were the people who had most recently read up

this whatever subject it was, and often very, very narrow subjects.

It suited me very very well.

I don't think it suits everybody.

I don't want to advocate necessarily that you should adopt the system here.

It's much too expensive anyway.

Although you could make it cheaper by having graduate students who are actually very good because they have the enthusiasm of youth.

But this is my autobiography and so I said what was good for me.

And yeah, okay, that's probably enough on that.

I know, when I heard that, I thought about the one -to -one that Mayor County and Senator McCoy are probably thinking, well, that sounds a little bit expensive.

Well, another question I want to ask you is I saw you tweet recently where you said

that for non -specialists my favorite book of yours

that you've written is Climbing Mount Improbable and I believe you said that might have been the least selling of your books.

Yes, I was rather annoyed about this because, I mean, some of my books have actually sold rather well and this particular one,

Climbing Mount Improbable, I think has sold the least of all my books

and I think it might be my favorite of my books.

It's about natural selection, and it's an attempt to explain to people why natural selection is not a theory of chance,

not a theory of random chance.

You would be amazed how many people say something like, well, nobody's going to persuade me that I'm a random accident.

Well, of course you're not a random accident, that's the whole point of natural selection.

Natural selection is the most non -random process you could imagine.

That's the whole point of it.

That was what Darwin did.

Darwin showed the only known alternative to random chance that we have,

because creation is not really an alternative to random chance, because you've still got a great big random god that you've got to explain in the first place.

There's never been any other theory to get away from random chance as the explanation for complicated illusion of design

which living creatures show.

Now, some of my other books do the same thing, but I think this one, Climbing Mount Improbable, is the one that does that most clearly.

Okay, and then when you said for the, I think your phrase was for the non -specialist, that implied to me perhaps that there was another book for specialists that was particularly your favorite.

Yes, my second book is called The Extended Phenotype, and that is designed for specialist biologists.

I actually like to think it can be read by others as well, and some people have been good enough to say that it is,

but that's why I had to qualify that, yes.

Okay.

Now, something I hear when we travel, we went on several speaking tours together, is I would hear the controversy come up about group selection,

kin selection, and how this might relate to your explanation of altruistic behavior.

And I want to, for the layperson, understand what is that debate, and who's on which side, and then maybe explain why I imagine your side is correct.

Do you really want a tutorial?

I mean, well, if that's what you want, I can do it.

Yeah, well, I know if you can do it within the kind of time frame available here.

Okay.

There has been a controversy in biology about where altruism comes from.

I wrote a book called The Selfish Gene.

And The Selfish Gene is not actually much about selfishness.

It's mostly about altruism.

It's about how natural selection, working at the level of the gene, natural selection favors those genes which are best at surviving.

Genes survive potentially through hundreds of millions of years or tens of millions of years.

Genes which are good at surviving are the ones that we still see in the world.

So every living creature around contains the genes of an unbroken line of successful ancestors where success means

that not a single one of them died young you can look back at your ancestors

100

and make the proud claim not a single one of my

101

ancestors ever died young not a single one of my ancestors

102

failed to achieve at least one heterosexual copulation plenty of other plenty of their contemporaries failed in both those respects

103

but we all of us contain the genes for success in surviving

104

and reproduction the genes that made our ancestors successful were the genes that were selfish at the level of the gene.

105

Any gene that works for the survival of a rival gene is not going to be around for very long.

106

However, a gene that makes it the individual bodies in

107

which it finds itself work for the survival of other individual bodies can survive,

108

for example, if those other bodies contain copies of the genes kin.

109

So kinship is an enormously important mechanism for the evolution of altruism.

110

Kinship is what explains everything about the social insects,

111

ants, bees, wasps, termites, where you have sterile workers who have no hope of reproducing themselves.

112

Instead, genes that make sterile workers care for their reproductive sisters

113

or nieces or nephews or brothers Those genes survive because copies of the genes in the sterile worker are in the reproductives.

114

And therefore, these genes are selfish genes looking after the reproduction of themselves, copies of themselves in other individuals.

115

That's called kin selection.

116

Now, the rival to kin selection historically was group selection.

117

And group selection said that those groups of animals

118

that contained altruistic individuals were more likely to survive and propagate themselves than rival groups which contained selfish individuals.

119

And that's the wrong way up.

120

That's the wrong way to look at it.

121

That departs from the explanatory principle of gene survival.

122

It's only genes that survive through countless generations.

123

So group selection will only work if you can make it work at the genetic level.

124

And I don't really think I'd want to, in this audience where we're supposed to be talking about secularism,

125

get into quite the detail that it would require to say that.

126

But you asked who's involved.

127

Unfortunately, the great E .O.

128

Wilson, who is by far the leading authority on social insects in the world,

129

has just recently been seduced into talking about group selection and abandoning his earlier espousal of kin selection.

130

And I think he's just not...

131

I mustn't libel.

132

Well, I like to hear you talk about science.

133

I enjoy it, because that's where I learn it.

134

Well, I love talking about science, but...

135

Yes.

136

Well, let me get to, because it's something, as people might have gathered from my remarks,

137

and it really energized me returning here to the United States, was this tour in Turkey.

138

And I promised folks in Turkey I would convey a message to you, so I'll just do it here in front of several hundred people.

139

But in Turkey, for those of you who don't know, and I didn't know that much, I studied foreign policy and international relations in college, and I knew Turkey and some basic events.

140

But I wasn't as familiar with the founding of the Turkish Republic.

141

This is a country that's bigger in population than Great Britain, bigger in population than France.

142

And the founder, a man named Ataturk, he wrote about evolution and required it in school.

143

And this is coming from a nation that's 98%, 99 % Muslim

144

and because he was such a successful military leader he had huge almost George Washington level sway over his society

145

and he said we're going to mandate science, education and all forms of education we're going to separate religion from government we're going to let women,

146

they elected women to public office earlier than many European nations

147

so this was the founding of the Turkish Republic now under

148

threat by this kind of Muslim extremist that's moved into the prime ministership But those people, they set out a plea,

149

and admittedly, some of that plea is directly to you, because I was talking to scientists in Turkey,

150

was they want help from the international community and the scientific community, because they feel like, unlike some of the more so -called Western nations,

151

they are neglected in our media, and their struggles are kind of unknown.

152

And I know that you've spoken often of issues of Islam, but is there a message I could carry back?

153

I know the message they want is that you'll go to Turkey. But about

154

that we can carry back to folks who are in these Muslim nations who are really looking for civil liberties

155

and feel under stress.

156

I am aware that Kamal Ataturk was a great secularist and founded the modern state of Turkey on secular principles, famously did so.

157

I wasn't aware that he was such an enthusiast for evolution, and I'm very glad to hear that.

158

Modern Turkey has a problem with a particular remarkably prolific and successful author.

159

I'm not going to mention his name.

160

I don't want to advertise it.

161

But he has produced a series of books, creationist books...

162

which are translated into goodness knows how many languages, and they're given away free to biology teachers all over the world in all sorts of different languages.

163

You walk into any biology department, you walk into the office of any biology teacher,

164

and you will find these thumping great books from Turkey.

165

They're picture books, they're beautifully illustrated.

166

By the way, I rather wonder whether the illustrations are violating copyright.

167

And I know that copyright law is quite stringent on illustrations.

168

So if there's any lawyer here who would like to look into this question, you could ruin this man,

169

which would do the world a hell of a lot of good.

170

The way the books are arranged is that there's beautiful, lavish colors.

171

On the left -hand side, you have a fossil, and on the right -hand side, you have a modern animal.

172

And in all cases, it says, look at this fossil, look at this modern animal, see, they're the same, therefore evolution hasn't happened.

173

Page after page after page, you turn the pages.

174

When you actually look at what these animals are, they're preposterous.

175

For example, on one of these double pages, the fossil is an eel, the modern animal is a snake.

176

In another case, the fossil animal is a caddis fly in amber.

177

You know that insects can be very beautifully preserved in amber.

178

However, the modern animal is a tidefly for catching trout made of feathers.

179

It has a steel hook sticking out of its back end.

180

Page after page of this lavishly,

181

expensively produced book, distributed free to biology teachers around the world is filled not only with these preposterous mistakes,

182

but the more general mistake of creationism.

183

Now this is something that should resonate with American biology teachers, because in too many places in this country,

184

the teaching of biology, the teaching of science, is being subverted by the interference of religion into science education.

185

And this is not, I think, a thing that's been much mentioned by any of today's speakers.

186

They've mentioned all sorts of other respects in which the interference of church into interstate is very important, and I agree with that.

187

But my own field is education, science education.

188

And I am deeply troubled by the stories that I get over

189

and over and over again from American teachers whose science lessons are subverted by often parents,

190

often school boards, often local politicians.

191

When I was in America a few months ago,

192

I met a teacher in Florida who told me that she was a biology teacher and she was teaching evolution.

193

and one of her pupils complained to his parents that he was being taught evolution, which he didn't want to believe in.

194

The parents went to the head teacher and complained.

195

The head teacher summoned the biology teacher and instead of telling the biology teacher, good for you, keep doing it,

196

reprimanded the biology teacher and forbade her from teaching evolution anymore,

197

all on the strength of one parent complaining, which is a scandal.

198

I mean, what it meant was that all the other pupils in the class were being deprived of a proper scientific education.

199

However, this biology teacher was a woman of some initiative.

200

She knew she wasn't allowed to teach evolution because the headteacher had told her not to.

201

She went to the local university and asked a professor to come to her class, And he taught the time.

202

I'm going to sneak in another science question, then I'll ask a secular one.

203

Since the selfish gene, what do you consider to be the greatest advance in evolutionary science?

204

We say that's major progress, really something new that's been revealed or a new way of looking at things advancing.

205

Well, I think it really started quite a bit before The Self -Esteem, actually, because The Self -Esteem was published in 1976.

206

The really, really big step was taken in 1953

207

when Watson and Crick solved the structure of DNA and showed that DNA has exactly the properties necessary

208

to be the genetic molecule and showed also, and this has now become a growing trend throughout biology ever since,

209

modern genetics, modern molecular genetics is digital.

210

I think with hindsight, we could say that it had to be digital.

211

It wasn't understood at the time.

212

If you look back into pre -Watson and Crick literature, you'll find all sorts of speculations about how genetics worked,

213

which I think with hindsight, we now know that not only did they not work, they couldn't have worked.

214

Modern genetics is digital.

215

It's just like computer science.

216

It's a branch of computer science.

217

It's a branch of information technology.

218

And it sort of had to be, because otherwise genes, genetic replication,

219

would not have had the necessary high fidelity to mediate the evolutionary process.

220

Now, ever since Watson and Crick, the molecular genetics revolution has been gathering pace.

221

So, as you know, the Human Genome Project took about 10 years to sequence the complete human genome.

222

It can now be done in a few weeks.

223

There's an astonishing speed -up in progress in doing this kind of work, this kind of digital sequencing.

224

The equivalent to the Chimpanzee Genome Project,

225

the Dog Genome Project, all sorts of genome projects are now underway they're greatly speeded up by previous ones,

226

because you can build on the experience of the past, greatly speeded up by modern computer technology.

227

But in the field of evolution, what this means is that whereas Darwin, when doing his comparative anatomy,

228

was limited to looking at bones and things like that, and comparing animals, comparing the hand of a man with the hand of a bat,

229

and the hand of a dolphin, for example, and seeing, showing that they're all mammals, that they all have a common ancestor with a similar hand.

230

Nowadays you can do that with literally billions of bits of information, nucleotides.

231

Literally, it's like comparing two texts from the Bible, two texts of the book of Isaiah, where you actually compare letter by letter by letter.

232

And that means that in principle it will be possible to work out the complete family tree of all life.

233

It can't be done yet.

234

There are lots of pitfalls and lots of difficulties.

235

But this cornucopia of information, which was not available to Darwin, Darwin would have absolutely loved it.

236

This is the most important thing that's been happening ever since 1953, and it's been happening ever faster,

237

long after The Selfish Gene was published.

238

Oddly enough, nothing in the molecular genetics revolution, I think, would cause me to revise the fundamental principle of the selfish gene.

239

That's still true, although we now know hugely more about what genes are and how they work.

240

Nevertheless, the principle I was talking about earlier of the immortal gene

241

going on through generation after generation as the unit of natural selection, that actually remains intact.

242

In a way, I'm slightly sorry to say that

243

because scientists get kudos if they say they were wrong and change their mind, but in this particular case, I can't do it.

244

Well, I'm going to ask one secular question, and I know there's many people who would like to ask questions at the microphone, and we'll do that.

245

Just to reiterate the schedule from here is after I'll ask this question, then we'll turn to audience questions

246

and then we're going to have I believe a book signing afterwards

247

which if I'm correct is going to be upstairs

248

and people can also purchase books if they wish

249

while they're in the book signing line but they'll also

250

if you filled out your form be able to attend the

251

reception where I hope everyone will take a leadership role and that

252

that leads me to my last question last time we saw

253

each other I just made a presentation about the Secularity USA project

254

and you sent me a nice email saying to break open the champagne about this project

255

and I must say since then I've invested actually I must

256

in order to get us where we are now several thousands of my own dollars in hopes

257

that this can really be something where the folks here more

258

so than than me take leadership in this project and I hope maybe as a closing message before the audience questions

259

You might kind of tell them why you think this is a champagne opening worthy project

260

and what its real potential is with Secularity USA.

261

Well, as I said before, I think that the secular constitution of this country is the envy of the world.

262

It's certainly the envy of Britain, where insofar as we have a constitution at all, we don't really have a written constitution, but insofar as we have a constitution, it is very far from secular.

263

I mean, there are bishops in the House of Lords.

264

There are non -elected people in Parliament who are there purely because they are religious leaders.

265

So church interferes with state all the time.

266

And I think that places like Britain do envy the United States Constitution

267

and are sorry to see this departure from it that I mentioned earlier.

268

I was very persuaded by what you said about Iowa serving as a kind of megaphone

269

for anybody who comes here when the world's press is here.

270

That seemed to me to be a politically, tactically very sound thing to do.

271

And it was done by Jimmy Carter, as you said.

272

It was done by Barack Obama, I think, as well.

273

So it looks to me as though Iowa is the happening place.

274

And so I...

275

I can congratulate Sean and Alan and their team, and I hope that the team will grow bigger and

276

that people will come flooding into Iowa to help with your local organizing committee

277

and that you will achieve this really noble goal.

278

Thank you very much, and I think will we switch to lights where people can go to the microphone for questions?

279

What can I, as a student, do to make sure that I receive an adequate science education?

280

What can you, as a student, do to see that you receive an adequate scientific education?

281

I'm sorry if it's necessary for you to take the steps that your teachers ought to be taking to do that.

282

If you've got good teachers, then you're fine

283

if you've got teachers who are refusing to teach science properly

284

then I suppose what you do is complain to you do exactly what

285

that Florida child did in fact in the other the other way you yeah that's difficult for you

286

because at you're at your age I think that that would

287

that would be very difficult be open -minded be critical think for yourself ask yourself

288

when you're taught anything is this the kind of thing

289

which is probably known because of real evidence

290

or is this the kind of thing that you're just being told

291

because of authority something like that so

292

if somebody tells you something about the real world you could

293

ask yourself the question what kind of evidence would lead to this belief about about the about the real world

294

and try to do a little bit of research ask around

295

ask your parents find out whether there's real evidence for the thing

296

that you're being told and mistrust it if it turns out that there isn't any evidence,

297

but that this is just something which you're being told from authority.

298

What would be a discovery that you would find fascinating, you would like to see discovered by science coming forward, or what particular advancement in science excites you?

299

You're not asking me to actually say what that discovery would be, because if I could do that.

300

Well, the origin of life would be very nice.

301

I was saying earlier that the immortal gene is the key to natural selection.

302

Natural selection can only get going when the immortal gene was born.

303

So the origin of life had to be the origin of the very first self -replicating molecule, something like DNA,

304

but it probably wasn't DNA because DNA requires too sophisticated an infrastructure in order to do its job of self -replicating.

305

DNA needs protein in order to do its job of self -replicating, and protein needs DNA, so we have a catch -22.

306

So the original self -replicating molecule probably wasn't DNA what it was nobody knows we may never know because it's

307

shrouded in the past however the best hope would be if somebody produces a model a theory

308

which is so good so elegant

309

that everybody says yes of course it has to be

310

that way because that's such an elegant theory that's the sort of thing physicists do all the time

311

biologists usually don't have that that luxury um

312

so i i have good hope that

313

that may happen in my lifetime perhaps an even wilder hope

314

would be to solve the problem of what is subjective consciousness

315

and that's a much philosophically much more difficult there was a book

316

that was published in I think it was Australia I won't advertise it

317

but it pretty much said not only to kids

318

but to their parents hey don't go get vaccinated for anything

319

it was you know we've always had Christian scientists who are always completely against vaccinations and even seeing the doctor.

320

So could you elaborate, I suppose, a bit on what we should, and what steps we should take to make sure

321

that children don't die from not getting vaccinated and not from seeing the doctor?

322

This is very serious because it's not just that if you don't vaccinate, if enough people don't vaccinate,

323

then you don't push the herd above the threshold that's necessary to stop epidemics forming.

324

The mathematical models of epidemiology have shown that if there are enough, there's a high enough percentage,

325

and the percentage varies with different diseases, but whatever the critical percentage is, as long as that percentage is reached of people who are immune to the disease,

326

you won't get an epidemic epidemic.

327

If you drop below that critical percentage, then you're going to get an epidemic of measles or whooping cough or whatever it is.

328

So, there's a social welfare aspect to this as well as just a private one.

329

It's not just a private matter of, do I get vaccinated myself or do I vaccinate my children myself?

330

You're actually damaging society as a whole if you don't vaccinate.

331

And one can say with confidence that vaccination works.

332

The evidence in favor of vaccination is overwhelming.

333

And so it is a benighted view that you shouldn't have been...

334

That every now and again scare stories arise that vaccinating a particular vaccine causes autism, whatever it might be.

335

It's very understandable why parents would be scared of that.

336

And I think part of the reason for that is that to vaccinate a child is to take a positive step.

337

You actually pay a doctor to stick a needle in them.

338

So that if you believe the story that it causes autism or causes something else, then the parent has a feeling of blame,

339

self -blame, which is, so to speak, a sin of commission whereas if you fail to vaccinate

340

and then the child gets the disease and maybe even dies,

341

somehow in our psychology it doesn't feel like the same deed that you've done.

342

Even I, when there was one of these scares, I think it was about whooping cough,

343

and I was worried about whether to get my daughter vaccinated, went to my doctor and said,

344

is it true that you can get bad side effects from whooping cough vaccine?

345

And he got up and selected a book from his bookshelf and he said, well, it is true, but the danger from whooping cough itself is 3 ,000 times greater.

346

So I said, right.

347

Thank you.

348

What was it like to meet someone like Bill O 'Reilly, especially someone in your field and intelligence?

349

I've done Bill O 'Reilly three times now.

350

I've been able to see two.

351

The first time, he treated me with a certain measure of respect, I think.

352

We had a moderately okay conversation.

353

I think the second time was when I get, the tide goes in, the tide goes out,

354

the tide isn't it and I lost respect for him

355

and I think the third time

356

that was down the line I wasn't actually in the studio

357

and he was shouting at me so much

358

that I eventually said will you stop shouting at me and listen and he did

359

I slightly suspect from having met him Outside the studio before the microphones were switched on.

360

He's not quite as stupid as he pretends to be He's playing to his audience Hi,

361

um, whilst researching in Bristol this summer, whenever I met British students and they found out I was American

362

One of the first things they would say

363

and the professors as well was oh it must be awful to be a paleontologist in America

364

It must be awful to be learning about evolutionary biology in America.

365

And so that's obviously concerning.

366

But I was wondering if you see that perspective in your colleagues as well and whether you think that could be damaging.

367

I hear what you're saying.

368

I don't, actually.

369

I mean, I've traveled a lot in America, and I've always been, whenever I visited schools, visited universities, is,

370

I think Liberty University is the only place I've ever visited where I've thought this place should really be closed down.

371

But in general, I have been impressed.

372

It may be that my hosts have been selective in who they take me to.

373

I read the statistics.

374

I'm aware that there is massive opposition to the teaching of our subject you're an evolutionist as well, yeah.

375

There is massive opposition.

376

I'm aware of this from opinion polls.

377

I'm aware that Gallup polls suggest that 45 percent or

378

so of the American population believes the world is less than 10 ,000 years old, which is, by the way, as I've often said before,

379

equivalent to believing that the width of North America is eight yards

380

but but I I never I met I never meet these people

381

and and and I don't really quite I can't marry it up to the the fact

382

that you use the word perception I mean I I have a perception I think

383

that I think the world has a perception

384

that this country United States of America is is beyond compare the leading scientific power in the world,

385

the leading scientific nation ever.

386

And so, in a way, it's all the more credit to those scientists like yourself who are doing proper science,

387

despite being held back by that 45%.

388

Just think what you could do if you didn't have that 45%.

389

Good evening, Doctor.

390

My question is kind of a different tack.

391

What in your definition is a species?

392

Okay.

393

Where you have sexual reproduction, and you do have sexual reproduction in most of the animals that we're familiar with.

394

A species is defined as a group of animals which can interbreed with each other under natural conditions.

395

Species that have drifted apart from each other so that they can no longer interbreed with each other have become separate species.

396

So the origin of species, to quote Darwin's title, is the moment when a species divides into two

397

and divides sufficiently far apart from each other that

398

if they meet again they can't interbreed it's a very very

399

important process there are there have been on this earth literally

400

billions of separate species they're all descended from a single common ancestor

401

so this process of branching so -called speciation branching

402

and then being sufficiently far apart

403

that they can no longer interbreed is what it's about it's a remarkable fact

404

which nobody can deny that if you follow your ancestry back sufficiently far

405

and you follow the ancestry back of any other animal you

406

like to mention let's take a snail you will eventually hit a common ancestor in the case of humans

407

and snails that common ancestor lived more than a billion years ago

408

but there was a time

409

when some ancestral species we don't know what it was was

410

accidentally probably accidentally split into two perhaps by some geographical barrier and

411

one side went off eventually to become vertebrates including us the

412

other side went off eventually to become most of the invertebrates including including snails

413

but there was a time when two siblings brother and sister sister sister

414

one of them was destined to give rise to us

415

and the other was destined to give rise to snails plus of course lots of other things Isn't that a wonderful thought?

416

Thank you, Mr. Dawkins, for taking my question.

417

In my friendly talks with the religious right,

418

some of them have been just simply dismissive of humanism as just a modern form of religion.

419

Would you remark on that?

420

Well, humanism is in one respect a kind of religion

421

because it aspires to take the place of religion with respect to things like ideals,

422

morals, principles to live by,

423

maybe meetings that you hold to foster some sense of solidarity.

424

So, quite a lot of the things that religion does can be done by humanists.

425

Humanists can be trained to conduct funerals, conduct weddings, and they do many of the things that clergy people do.

426

However, the word religion has come to be associated with a belief in something supernatural.

427

And that's the one thing that humanists, at least in the sense that I think you're meaning it, don't believe.

428

So it is a kind of atheistic way of living.

429

I don't always call myself a humanist.

430

I sometimes do.

431

But I think humanism is kind of the religious wing of atheism.

432

I am an artist at the Iowa State University

433

and I'm a big believer that the importance of evaluating the origin

434

or resource of an image or piece of work just as much as any scientific document

435

or literary work so I was wondering

436

if you had any words to say in regard to visual

437

literacy in society with regard to what sorry visual literacy visual literacy literacy visual literacy gosh

438

but most of the questions I got I've had before but

439

that one is totally new to me

440

which is wonderful I am not very visually literate I'm not the best person to answer

441

that question I have a bit of a blind spot where where art is concerned

442

so I don't think I I have to come back to

443

that I don't have an immediate answer to

444

that I'm sorry it's your subject

445

not mine I

446

spent my

447

life breeding plants for drought tolerance, and so I'm keenly aware of the dire implications of climate change.

448

And so as an evolutionary biologist, do you take a fated perspective that in the sense that most species become extinct,

449

and that's our fate, or do these selfish genes give us hope for the future?

450

It's true that most species have gone extinct, and therefore, statistically, we might fear

451

that the same will happen to us I think there are reasons to think

452

that we might be an exception to the rule we are exceptions in

453

so many ways we are a very very remarkable species we

454

are in this magnificent theater it's totally totally different environment from the environment

455

that our wild ancestors would have felt felt at home

456

and they would have been utterly bewildered by clothes by cars by computers by planes by refrigerators

457

and so I think that the kind of catastrophe

458

which leads to the extinction

459

which has historically led to the extinction of 99 % of all species

460

that have ever lived we have a very good chance

461

because of our technology of overcoming maybe even if the

462

if the worst fears of of of climate change profits come true

463

that will be a disaster for the world as a whole

464

and it'll be disaster for the great majority of humans

465

but I don't think it's necessarily true that we will go extinct

466

because we you could imagine

467

that humans would have technological ways of preserving even even something as disastrous as the one

468

that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, when a meteorite hit the Earth with a force greater than

469

all the hydrogen bombs in the world put together hundreds of times over.

470

We might even survive that.

471

We might, by the way, be starting to think about ways of deflecting the next one that comes along, because there will be one.

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

धाराप्रवाह बोलने के लिए ज़रूरी सब कुछ

AI उच्चारण स्कोरहर वाक्य का स्कोर

IPA अभ्यासहर ध्वनि में महारत

शब्दावलीअपना शब्द भंडार बनाएँ

शब्द गेमखेलते हुए सीखें

QR स्कैन करें

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

📺 उसी चैनल से

Richard Dawkins vs. Mehdi Hasan

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

✨ अनुशंसित वीडियो

233 वाक्य

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

यह C1 स्तर का स्पीकिंग पाठ वीडियो “"Richard Dawkins & Sean Faircloth in Conversation"” पर आधारित है। इस वीडियो में शैडोइंग के लिए 471 वाक्य और 6337 शब्द हैं। बोला गया हिस्सा 45:16 लंबा है। वक्ता लगभग 140 शब्द प्रति मिनट की स्थिर गति से बोलता है, जो शैडोइंग के लिए आरामदायक है। 82% शब्द अंग्रेज़ी के 3,000 सबसे आम शब्दों में से हैं; बाकी शब्द अभ्यास से पहले देख लेना अच्छा रहेगा।

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो के 15 सबसे कठिन शब्द, उच्चारण और अर्थ के साथ:

शब्द	उच्चारण	अर्थ
ancestor संज्ञा	/ˈæn.sɛs.tɚ/	पूर्वज
genetics संज्ञा	/dʒəˈnɛt.ɪks/	अनुवांशिकी
secular विशेषण	/ˈsɛkjʊlə/	पन्थनिरपेक्ष
genome संज्ञा	/ˈd͡ʒiː.noʊm/	संजीन
envy संज्ञा	/ˈɛnvi/	ईर्ष्या, जलन
literacy संज्ञा	/ˈlɪtəɹəsi/	साक्षरता
replicate क्रिया	/ˈɹɛplɪkeɪt/	अनुकृति करना, अनुकरण करना
reproduction संज्ञा	/ˌɹiːpɹəˈdʌkʃən/	प्रजनन
evolutionary विशेषण	/ˌiː.vəˈluː.ʃən.ɛɹ.i/	क्रमविकासीय
cough क्रिया	/kɔf/	खाँसना
fossil संज्ञा	/ˈfɑsl̩/	जीवाश्म
altruism संज्ञा	/ˈæl.tɹu.ɪz.əm/	परहितवाद
humanism संज्ञा	/ˈhjumənɪz(ə)m/	मानववाद
humanist संज्ञा	/ˈhjuːmənɪst/	मानववादी
snail संज्ञा	/sneɪl/	घोंगा

वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब

शब्द	उच्चारण	अर्थ
come along क्रिया		साथ चलना, साथ आना
fill out क्रिया	/fɪl ˈaʊt/	भरना
get up क्रिया		उठना
go out क्रिया		बाहर निकलना, निकलना

दोहराने लायक वाक्य

वीडियो के छोटे, पूरे वाक्य जिन्हें आप रोज़ की बातचीत में इस्तेमाल कर सकते हैं:

I want to know, you know, what was this mechanism?
Faircloth, what about the torts rule of what have you?
Do you really want a tutorial?
What in your definition is a species?
Would you remark on that?

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:

संरचना	वीडियो में
Present perfect continuous have/has been + -ing — पहले शुरू हुआ काम जो अब भी जारी है	has been gathering · that's been happening
Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है	you've had · you've written · have actually sold
Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है	is sometimes forgotten · is admired · was given
Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी	people who had · students who are · genes which are

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

वक्ता 128 बार संक्षिप्त रूपों का प्रयोग करता है, जैसे don't, I'm, you're। इन्हें वैसे ही छोटा बोलें जैसा आप सुनते हैं।

“sh” और “zh” की ध्वनियाँ: reproduction /ˌɹiːpɹəˈdʌkʃən/, evolutionary /ˌiː.vəˈluː.ʃən.ɛɹ.i/, sufficiently /səˈfɪʃəntli/, kinship /ˈkɪnʃɪp/, vaccination /ˌvæk.sɪˈneɪ.ʃən/
लंबे शब्द — बलाघात सही रखें: literacy /ˈlɪtəɹəsi/, reproduction /ˌɹiːpɹəˈdʌkʃən/, evolutionary /ˌiː.vəˈluː.ʃən.ɛɹ.i/, altruism /ˈæl.tɹu.ɪz.əm/, humanism /ˈhjumənɪz(ə)m/

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

पहले बिना बोले पूरा वीडियो एक बार सुनें और जो शब्द नहीं आते उन्हें लिख लें।
सामान्य गति पर एक-एक वाक्य की शैडोइंग करें और हर वाक्य तब तक दोहराएँ जब तक आपकी लय वक्ता से न मिल जाए।
अपनी आवाज़ रिकॉर्ड करें और मूल से तुलना करें, ख़ासकर ancestor, genetics, secular जैसे शब्दों पर ध्यान दें।

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

शैडोइंग तकनीक: पूरी चरण-दर-चरण गाइड पढ़ें →

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: "Richard Dawkins & Sean Faircloth in Conversation" - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

अभ्यास मोड चुनें

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

Richard Dawkins vs. Mehdi Hasan

Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??

Amartya Sen interview (1999)

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Isaac Newton is #1

Sheldocracy Is the Only Ethical Solution | Young Sheldon

NT Wright on Jordan Peterson: "I have never met him, but..."

The paradox at the heart of AI and science | Terence Tao

Kathy's dissertation on water pumps: IELTS LISTENING Vol 5 Test 6 Section 3

2. Socratic Citizenship: Plato's Apology

Introduction to Biology: Crash Course Biology #1

Why Do We Exist? With Hakeem Oluseyi

KenBurn 1

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब

दोहराने लायक वाक्य

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?