Haz vs Chance of Fluri | InfraredShow Debate

speak mendeloid

speak mendelian speak speak speak

speak stop unmute your [ __ ] mic and

speak

okay you what do you want to debate

perfect who are you on twitter

um my name is flurry carl flurry okay

the most annoying [ __ ] on twitter let's

continue so you all want to defend the

debunked fake science of genetics right

well it's not debunked okay it's not

debunked

go ahead continue

okay so i mean i'm you're obviously like

a [ __ ] like sancoist right so i'm i'm

uh actually i believe in real science

yeah like uh explain to me why no one

uses his theories right now

no one uses lysenko's theories right now

yeah because the biological scientific

establishment which was based in london

headquartered in london inherited by the

americans created a global scientific

consensus that was hostile to any

[ __ ] challenging and experimental

theories do you mean to say on hold on

no no no no no we're gonna we're

actually gonna go down this [ __ ]

rabbit hole

for hundreds and hundreds of years it

was accepted

that

the

earth sorry the sun revolves around the

earth so many misguided views have been

accepted by

mainstream intellectual establishments

throughout history are you actually

making the argument right now that

because lysenko has not been adopted by

these dumb [ __ ] idiot scientists

that means it's wrong or it's somehow

incriminating upon him franco based most

of his ideas on the ideas of lamarchism

which was already no it did not

by the time he came no it wasn't

lamarcusm was first of all never fully

debunked it just fell more out of favor

in comparison to darwin's theories

because the ideologists of the

scientific establishment shut the [ __ ]

up shut your [ __ ] mouth the

ideologists of the anglo-american

establishment ran wild with darwin's

theories social darwinism and all this

race [ __ ] because they got [ __ ]

excited about the metaphysical

implications of darwin completely

distorting any kernel of real scientific

value so yes lamarcus only fell out of

favor because of ideology

but even because though it fell out of

favor that doesn't mean it was ever

[ __ ] debunked

you you seem to have a view that these

but you seem to have a view that shut

the [ __ ] up shut the [ __ ] up shut the

[ __ ] up you seem to have a view that

these biologists know more than they

actually [ __ ] do in reality

biologists don't know [ __ ] university

myself

oh you're in the university

no i studied it myself so oh you studied

okay you studied like all right

you studied like

okay

yeah actually because i've done some

historic research myself oh you've done

research yourself okay so what do you

know about lysenko yeah in school but

because uh you know his ideas were never

adopted because they're pretty much

useless how do you know how do you know

shut the [ __ ] up shut the [ __ ] up i'm

gonna stop you there shut the [ __ ] up

shut the [ __ ] up

shut the [ __ ] up shut the [ __ ] up shut

the [ __ ] up shut the [ __ ] up shut the

[ __ ] up

how do you know they were useless

how do you know they're useless

because we have no scientific

advancements to point to from his

ideology how do you know

because there's nothing to show for it

really because soviet grain yields in

the time

that lysenko was in charge of that

appear to show an increase of grain

yields

the soviets predating lysenko and the

soviets after lysenko an increase in

crop yields after the identity adoption

of lysenko's methods his ideas were [ __ ]

okay okay how do you know that his ideas

were [ __ ] what's your argument

he has absolutely nothing to show for it

so look i need to basically run shut the

[ __ ] up shut your [ __ ] mouth you run

your [ __ ] mouth you run your [ __ ]

mouth shut the [ __ ] up you are saying

you don't understand basic logic here

even if it is true that lysenko's ideas

have to this day been completely

unproven which can't be even said if

that was your argument that's very

different from saying his ideas are [ __ ]

and are wrong if they're unproven

there's still a possibility that they

could be proven

they could be proven one day there's no

evidence that his ideas hold any water

right now

and how do you know that

because there's nothing to show for it

there's no evidence okay so you're

saying because no one is reproducing

lysenko's experiments or trying to with

any good faith that means there's no

merit to them

even his own experiments okay i i don't

mean to logic but are you aware of the

appeal to the authority fallacy because

that's all you're [ __ ] doing right

now maybe people in charge aren't doing

it so it's all wrong it's not authority

it's actual like

listen i personally i i personally

listen i don't make my money i don't

make my money

hey hey i don't then it's kind of

debunked right okay okay how is it

debunked go ahead

when no one else can reproduce your

results then your ideas are debunked

okay you again don't understand basic

logic and i'm so sorry to [ __ ]

humiliate your brain in front of your

mother right now telling you this

if you do not

make an effort to reproduce someone's

[ __ ] work that does not mean it

cannot be reproduced you don't know if

it can or cannot be reproduced until you

try to because it starved millions of

people okay when did it start millions

of people

uh what the 40s okay when

is it 46 47 okay do you know okay okay

so what was significant about the year

4647 do you know

what do you mean is there any context

you're not you're not disclosing to us

about the year 1946 and 1947 what's

going on in those years is there any

[ __ ] context for why there could be a

famine in 1946 or 47 that you're not

talking about right now rain crops with

frozen water oh really how about the

most devastating war in the history of

russia's existence which killed 30

million people does that not matter

which decimated soviet infrastructure to

the [ __ ] stone age

how about the [ __ ] war which

decimated the soviet economy and

infrastructure to the [ __ ] stone age

have you ever considered that's maybe a

factor

you understand that the soviets

themselves like in the 50s

said that you know lysenko's idea failed

to meet their economic goals well they

didn't normally did not lysenko's grain

yields were fine khrushchev decided to

adopt the american version of

agriculture because of his general

shut the [ __ ] up i'll explain the entire

historiographical and sociological

reasons

shut your [ __ ] mouth shut your

[ __ ] mouth shut your [ __ ] mouth

shut your [ __ ] mouth if it wasn't

well you shut your [ __ ] mouth you

sound like a gobbling chicken right now

i [ __ ] can't stand your [ __ ]

gobbling chicken

shut the [ __ ] up shut the [ __ ] up i'm

muting you if you don't shut the [ __ ] up

first of all the reason is simple

khrushchev and his friends were part of

the same stratum as the soviet

scientific establishment who lysenko

humiliated because he was the barefooted

peasant that completely humiliated these

[ __ ] likes

shut the [ __ ] you know what he's getting

muted he doesn't know how to shut his

[ __ ] mouth he doesn't know who's

[ __ ] discord he's in so he's [ __ ]

muted there you go the dumbass is muted

we can finally explore the real

sociological and historiographical

reasons for the rejection of lysenko

khrushchev

represented the same social milieu that

was absolutely humiliated by the stalin

revolution which propped up the russian

peasant and the average russian person

the subject of russian civilization over

the westernized elites to whom

khrushchev was loyal to and was a part

of

so after stalin died and when khrushchev

conspired with his friends to take power

lysenko was rejected in part and parcel

with the overall sociological change

implied by the uh denunciation of stalin

all of the old people

after the 30s

to be clear not the 20s who were purged

all of the people from the 30s became

rehabilitated and the same people who

had power across literature art um

science they all became rehabilitated

under khrushchev it had absolutely

nothing to do with the inferiority or

superiority of lysenko's methods it had

everything to do with the sociological

implications of the rejection of stalin

okay finally we can see in practice

khrushchev's uh rejection of lysenko

through his adoption of american-style

true scientific agriculture and this

took the form of khrushchev's virgin

lands

campaign where he wanted to emulate

large-scale american agriculture as

opposed to the proto-ecological

orientation lysenko was starting to

establish with a great plan for the

transformation of nature even scientists

today are admitting that this is a

predecessor to ecological agriculture

right because it's a more dialectical

view about the relationship between

agriculture and nature

which accounts for being able to re so

ver khrushchev adopted the [ __ ] brain

dead american

standard big agriculture

and it was a [ __ ] catastrophe and the

only reason there wasn't a [ __ ]

famine in the soviet union as a result

of khrushchev's reckless worship of corn

and american agriculture was because the

soviets pathetically had to start

importing grain from its [ __ ]

satellite countries and its allies the

soviets

imported grain

the soviet union which used to produce

surpluses of grain the whole point of

collectivization was producing surpluses

of grain for industry so up until

khrushchev the soviet union was

producing a surplus of grain

so for you to [ __ ] say that it was

rejected because it was wrong is [ __ ]

brain dead

now i'm going to unmute him

yeah

you're done

go ahead respond

so i mean the reason largely that um

under crew chev they had to import grain

was that uh they had to they boost meat

and milk supplies and they had to feed

the cattle okay so what was the result

of the virgin so was was khrushchev's

agricultural policy successful or or not

successful

compared to before ramen after what so

success right

yes or no were they successful or not

successful people didn't starve to death

no they didn't because they imported

grain because the soviet union for the

first time had an international network

of friends that they could trade with to

import grain from

yeah that's great

the soviet union had enough of an

industrial surplus to buy grain but

otherwise they wouldn't starve

pretty regularly they would have starved

if it was not for the excess of wealth

that was created under stalin through

industrialization

you know famines used to be fairly

regular they became

far less regular it seems like a win

famines happened twice under stalin

during collectivization which

established the industrialization that

prevented the famine under khrushchev's

dumbass policies in the first place and

after the most devastating war in the

[ __ ] history of humanity probably

so i would say that stalin's record is

pretty good lysenko's ideas were adopted

after the famine of 32 and 33 and it

looks like to me that he did pretty

[ __ ] well uh yeah i know yeah it does

why okay let me ask you a simple logical

question

shut the [ __ ] up i don't give a [ __ ]

about any scientist every single

scientist

every single scientist can come here and

suck my [ __ ] do not invoke the authority

of these fraudulent pieces of [ __ ]

scientists don't [ __ ] evoke the

authority of scientists in the [ __ ]

presence of the khan the khan demands

the scientists suck his [ __ ] do not

evoke the authority of [ __ ]

scientists in my [ __ ] presence they

will all suck my [ __ ] second of all okay

i don't give a [ __ ] about your appeal to

authority boy you're now talking to the

[ __ ] khan there's no authority of

science here you understand second of

all i mean even beyond authority there

are reasons shut the [ __ ] up shut the

[ __ ] up you have you haven't made an

independent argument all you've done is

appeal to authority you have not made a

single [ __ ] argument here so finally

there was another listen let me ask you

a simple logical question shut your

[ __ ] mouth and you know i got you

cornered here you can't say [ __ ] [ __ ]

why is it genetically modified shut the

[ __ ] up i'll explain gmos in a second

why is it that lysenko's ideas had been

adopted for more than a decade and yet

there was only one famine which

coincidentally was

after the most devastating war in

history soviet union if slicenko's ideas

were responsible for famine why didn't

they lead to more famines than they did

why didn't we see famines throughout the

entirety of the duration in which

lysenko's methods were adopted on a

widespread scale it's a simple question

i guess they weren't uh you know things

are great right like so maybe they

weren't a 100 damaging they did

contribute to the famine right so

okay what evidence do you have for that

what evidence you have that they

contributed to the famine

well i'm you can read books on this

right like uh yeah okay

and give me a primary sword give me a

raw meat and potatoes primary source

let's talk about let's talk about the

benefits i don't want to shift gears i

want a raw meat and potatoes primary

source that lysenko's ideas contributed

to famine right you want me to look that

up right now

well you're clearly saying it so you

clearly know it so you can clearly cite

it

so

while i'm doing this i just want to ask

you a question okay what benefits do you

think lysenko's idea

uh brought to the field

you know oh sure lysenko's ideas first

of all uh for practical this is what

lysenko was concerned with most of all

lysenko hated metaphysics he hated

[ __ ] he hated he didn't like he

didn't care about philosophy he cared

about

feeding people that was the whole he was

called the barefooted peasant and he

succeeded in that he produced more grain

yields more successfully than had been

done before

second of all leicester also contributed

yeah you can look at any account of

soviet grain yields in the period in

which lysenko's methods were adopted

i can link you that if you want i can

link you in the discord if you want

yeah link it

okay you want me to link right now

soviet grain yields

yeah

soviets grain yields

here we go

grain production in the ussr

okay i have to find beginning in 32.

listen co was right here you go i mean

this is pretty damning stuff i mean it's

like

it's that simple here you go this is one

example of many you could probably have

and also guys put in the fact checking

and give this guy the stuff in fact

check you look in fact checking this is

just what i pulled from google right now

but everyone is free to link more for

him

okay

so this is just one

okay

second of all

um

the also important thing was that

lysenko actually contributed

to the field of biology itself because

he allowed us to rethink

the process of evolution and speciation

inadvertently by the way this is all

because of his practical based this is

all because of his meat and potatoes

practical methods when it came to

agriculture but inadvertently he

discovered that biology works in ways

that the geneticists um weren't able to

account for and now that we're seeing

that all these uh discoveries in

microbiology which again traditional

evolutionary synthesis cannot account

for lysenko's ideas seem awfully

um approximate

approximate to a to an actual

explanation and ability to make sense of

these like how is it that genetic

mutation how is this possible that's the

question scientists ask how is this

possible well lysenko already provides

the paradigm with which to explain how

these discoveries are even possible in

the first place

so the uh the link that you provided

ends in 1940.

yeah well that's just what i found on

google uh i can try to find other ones

i i searched through

soviet

so

come on i'll get more i'll get i'll get

another one

okay um um

so i mean epigenetics

doesn't uh disprove you know gene theory

in any way why not um

well because it it's essentially

uh that the the fact that there are

triggers that you know determine what

phenotypes can be present okay sure can

you give me an example can you give me

an example of these triggers

uh so for example certain hallucinogenic

drugs can trigger um like

certain mental health issues

hold on hold on hold on okay

i asked you for a a gene trigger i

didn't ask you for a hallucinogenic

effect on someone's brain i asked you

it's an environmental

thing right so something that you would

expose yourself to that would trigger so

what what gene is responsible for that

phenotype

for the uh like

the

you know i think it's schizophrenia that

generally can you give me that can you

give me the list of can you give me the

gene or the list of genes that are

supposedly responsible for this

um

and i want to go through the study on

stream too just look up the exact code

yeah yeah go ahead give me the gene

that's responsible for the schizophrenia

because i'm sure there are multiple

factors involved go ahead yeah

um because genes are pretty cool well i

mean you're already way beyond the

territory of the people lysenko was

arguing with because according to them

um there's not way more factors there's

an essence there's a gene and that's

responsible for everything so i don't

know well

that's that's not exactly that's not

exactly why because the fundamental

paradigm of genetics is collapsing at

the seams with every new discovery

like they did understand that phenotypes

you know did vary right

okay but they varied as the nutritive

soil of the gene

right yeah so they were wrong in some

aspects i'll give you that okay

so you're saying lysenko was right

epigenetics is a new field that made it

a little bit more you know what

epigenetics

means uh it's the effects of no no what

does it mean the word epigenetic what

does that mean

uh i don't know the etymology okay it

means beyond genetics because genetics

are no longer sufficient

as a paradigm with which to explain the

phenotypes that we have

yeah so every time they look for genes

but that doesn't disprove

genes right

what do you mean it doesn't disprove

saying that there are things that go

beyond genes that affect genes doesn't

mean no there are things that

which means that the so-called gene

which they arbitrarily claim

is certain segments of dna

do not have the causal

role that they claimed before that they

did

there is a the process by which traits

are selected for happens beyond the gene

that's pretty [ __ ] wild

what do you mean by that

it means the phenotypes that we have

are given expression

in ways beyond

strands of dna

and actually epigenetics as a field

arose because of a few factors one of

the factors one of the important factors

was the fact that

that's

transgenerational inheritance was proven

based on environmental stimuli and

triggers like the induction of trauma

secondly right and this is a very

important conflict

secondly

secondly and this is a very important

context

the paradigm of genetics was failing the

attempt to isolate a gene for a trait

was failing so they switched

from genetic causation explanations for

traits which was a complete failure they

couldn't find genes that were

responsible for phenotypes in discrete

ways they found that well there's

multiple

genes that linked directly to traits

right no because i'll explain to you

that this way

you can say that traits are dependent no

no this is why it's wrong because you

can say traits are dependent on a gene

right that doesn't mean the gene caused

it which means put it this way if you

take something away you're gonna have an

effect if you take a gene away there

could be an effect a so-called strand of

dna

but that doesn't prove that dna is the

site of causation

second of all there are very very few

traits that can be directly linked

to strands of what we see on the street

you understand that the proteins that

make up like what the the uh being is

like are directly translated from the

dna strands right no they're not they're

not directly translated they are no they

are not that is an assumption that is

that's that's the um the fundamental

what is it called the fundamental dogma

of

um

microbiology which was disproven

recently no it's not never disproven

that's a fact if you want to no it's not

no it's not okay we're gonna actually

i'm gonna walk i want you to watch my

stream right now because i'll watch you

watch you uh walk you through this

you're gonna uh

here i'll uh no i'll walk you through it

okay so this is from a reputable source

this is not from a

with source it's from a reputable source

it's the end of the gene as we know it

we're not nearly as determined by our

genes as we once thought

and let me see so this is the paradigm

you're talking about dna template

proteins developing characteristics

so the central dogma can be conceived as

a one-way flow of information from the

code to the genes so this is the direct

thing you're talking about right

um

then came the brilliant technology of

sequencing genes

and let's continue

so scientists now understand that the

information in the dna code can only

serve as a template for a protein

um

it cannot possibly serve as instructions

for the more complex task of putting

proteins together

into a fully functioning being no more

than characters on a typework prior can

produce a story

um

enzymes and other proteins

eggs and sperm can be divested factors

still some other products with the

parents genes

okay so dna is not a cause in an active

sense it is a described as a passive

database which is used by the organism

to enable it to make the proteins that

it requires um

so

it's it's easy to see how the impression

of direct genetic instructions arose

parents pass on so he's saying there's

not a direct relationship

whatsoever

different proteins with widely different

functions can be produced from the same

gene

okay

all of these things that this article is

pointing out indicate that genes do not

directly code for proteins in the uh

there's no it's not a direct process and

as a matter of fact with this if you

read this article it's going to show you

how there's been discoveries surprising

which shows

an inversion of the process which

basically means

the germ line can be crossed

and that

dna itself the way dna itself works is

altered

by this cytoplasm or sorry

the rest of the cell

outside of the nucleus

okay

there's dna there too right

where

like outside of the no i know the

mitochondrial dna i know but the

cytoplasm which is not the mitochondrial

dna only can affect the nuclear dna

the way it's expressed so all these

things are interdependent in ways

we were absolutely clueless about before

only we weren't clueless about them

because lysenko already understood this

based on his paradigm of biology had

nothing to do with this why

because he had not he had no idea about

this he didn't even believe in

no no

lysenko did not reject microbiology he

just wasn't a microbiologist but the way

lysenko describes

macrobiological processes seems to

coincidentally align with what we're now

discovering about microbiology so that's

my point

no his theories were based again on the

marxism which is the idea no they were

not

was just as much okay darwin

darwin was just as much

darwin was just as much individual

you're reading the npc script right now

darwin was just as much an influence on

lysenko as lamarck was lysenko merely

claimed that the whole scale repudiation

of remark lamarck by the scientific

establishments was wrong and it was

based on ideology and metaphysics it

wasn't based on science and practical

science

believed that there could be even

greater change than lamarck lamarck at

least thought it was like somewhat

gradual lysenko believed there was

almost no limit to how much you no no

that's not true lamarck believed that in

nature it was gradual which is probably

something lysenko also believed but as a

scientist

trying lysenko is not just trying to

emulate nature he's trying to direct the

powers and forces of nature in a

practical

way established

what you're saying is let me explain to

you how [ __ ] stupid what you're

saying is you're saying something like

well

um

a scientist found out that it's very

rare for electricity to to hit a candle

and light the candle and then because

thomas edison wanted to be more rapid

about it with his light bulb that proved

well no it's the same thing lysenko was

a scientist who wanted to take the

insights of lamarcus i'm going to apply

them practically

right i need

but that what i'm saying is that

lamarckism is wrong

it's not

yes it is

so inherited characteristics cannot be

passed on

acquired characteristics cannot be

passed on used in disuse okay so it's

not like you know the more i reach for

something the longer senko didn't say

that either

hold on lysenko was based in the russian

scientific tradition of um which is

named min minturin whatever that guy's

name was before soviet ideology by the

way yeah which was based on

vernalization and things like that senko

was talking about induced changes he was

not talking about use or disuse i don't

know where you're getting that

well then then that's an aspect of

lamarck's thinking that lysenko or sorry

lamarck's theory that lysenko did not

adopt lysenko didn't base it i mean use

maybe could play a factor but the main

thing for lysenko

you know the main thing for lysenko was

environmentally induced changes

right but that's the thing is these

environmentally induced changes right he

believes are based on on what our use

and disuse right so he no he does okay

where he sprayed he sprayed low

temperature water on certain crops in

order to try to it's called

vernalization that was discovered by

someone before lysenko and it's still

used to to this day i don't know yeah no

no and there is a variety of you know

how no less you know think that lower

temperatures can actually produce better

that is actually uh something that that

is true but it's not that if you

continue to apply these low temperatures

that it will change something about the

species right it's not that like if i

continuously apply these these cold

waters to this plant that'll actually

change the the plant and that future

generations will be able to withstand

colder and colder well the thing is is

that

the thing is is that

what you're saying is wrong

uh because

you don't know that you don't know if

vernalization leads to generational

changes

it could if if the correct message never

applies

anything like that fertilization by

itself cannot but when applying

lysenko's special methods

for inducing generational change

you don't i'm just saying you could

never observe the generational change

that came from anything like that right

we did with lysenko and his special

experiments his experiments were not

able to be reproduced because his method

wasn't able to be reproduced because

he showed that vernalization is a you

know

a great idea and it can't even increase

uh crop yields in some cases right but

he didn't show that it actually changed

the organism and that it would change

it's it's he did he did it's just that

western scientists claim that his

results were fabricated based on nothing

because the thing is that if it did show

generational change you would expect

that they would implement his ideas for

longer expecting more results but that

didn't they did they implemented them in

the soviet union and in china um until

he fell out of favor with khrushchev for

again for reasons that had nothing to do

with science

and so again if you want to test out

these ideas i'm fine i think it probably

shouldn't start on the scale of like an

entire nation um just to avoid any kind

of yeah here's the thing i agree yeah i

listen listen i agree

but lysenko's methods

listen lysenko's methods were very

experientially unorthodox

so i do agree that scientists should be

investigating this and studying it the

problem is that they wouldn't be getting

any support or backing

by the scientific establishment

because there has been a dogma of

genetics that was adopted um

but genetics does i do foreign

that russian scientists are starting to

um

reassess lysenko's work in light of

epigenetics and i heard also the same is

true is going on in china so yeah we are

going to see a return of lysenko-ism

into the 21st century

if it's if his ideas are correct then we

would expect that right i do expect that

yeah um i don't but hey i could be wrong

right i'll admit that um but you don't

and and let let's look at how let's look

at how rational uh

let's let's look at how rational

i think there would be it would be a

crime okay okay let's let's look at the

right let's look at let's look at

let's look at the rationality of the

odds you're betting right now right

so we are witnessing the collapse of

genetics as a paradigm we're witnessing

the collapse of evolutionary synthesis

at the seams

we're witnessing the development of

jesus okay this is what soy reddit

scientist is like oh well this new thing

completely contradicts everything we

thought about genetics but that's okay

because that's just deepening our

knowledge of genetics at what point it

doesn't contradict everything we thought

about the genetics yes it

what you're saying is just as absurd as

if you're in a [ __ ] boat and at the

bottom floor of the boat all of these

holes of water suspended oh no the

boat's fine the boat's fine it's just

another hole

no there's clearly something wrong going

on and the boat is sinking that's what

no ideas evolve right

okay how can a standing how can they

coherent okay

explain this to me how can a coherent

theory of genetics survive all these

holes

so that's like saying you know um

[Music]

the theory of gravity

right no it's not the original newton

had the original idea because his

gravity came along and he took the body

actually

listen

gravity is an awfully simple general

idea the idea of gravity is simply like

this it's the force that pulls [ __ ] down

and it begins from there why are things

in space

it's the force

that is responsible for the

the way in which things in space

interact and it stops there

but genetics

is a very different it's very more much

more specific than the idea of gravity

genetics is an idea according to which

the nature of organisms

okay a gene is a unit of heredity so the

idea of genetics is that there are these

essential units of heredity that are

responsible for why organisms are the

way they are so it's not comparable to

[ __ ] gravity at all

only thing responsible for why organisms

are the way they are it's literally

called a unit of heredity

okay

so yes it is making the claim that

why we pass on the characteristics we do

is because they're encoded

in

these

units

and that is true

which is not [ __ ] true

yeah

we have we have multiple things we have

prenatal pediatric and adult genetics

right where we diagnose like rare

diseases and genetic origins we have

genetic oncology which focuses on

certain cancer risks that are genetic we

have neurogenetics which focuses on you

know muscular and neurological diseases

like alzheimer's and huntington's we

have cardiology that folks we don't have

any association between

molecular genetics

first of all first of all we have

genetically all those things you're

talking about are based on

pot smokers dude

first of all all those things all those

things shut up about pot smokers for a

second all those things you're talking

about are based on

[Music]

widespread multiple

multiple quote-unquote genetic

association which means there's

associations between having certain

certain strands of this on your dna and

having this certain risk right

there's a few holes i can poke in that

first of all it doesn't establish a

direct causal connection there could

very well be other reasons for why

like for example based on geography and

your population like origins there's so

many reasons when it comes to different

factors when you when you bring

statistics into the math it [ __ ]

collapse the second thing is

dna is not the same as genes okay

just because there's an association with

certain traits and your dna

doesn't mean your dna is functioning as

a gene

genes are a segment of dna like like for

example building molecules for example a

more holistic view of the risks of

having um a certain disease

can probably be assessed from your

parents um more holistic biological

constitution rather than just their dna

i'm sure you would yield far more

results it's not just your parents

sometimes it's like sometimes it skips a

generation there's certain things like

male pattern baldness that skips a

generation right there's no association

between any number of genes in male

pattern baldness and then we have

certain things like uh like super new

mary right okay you're you're making it

seem like i'm denying hold on you're

making it seem like i'm denying a

complex science of heredity

rather than rejecting

the genetic paradigm of heredity which

is what i'm rejecting i'm rejecting that

there's a gene

so you're rejecting the fact that

there's a unit of heredity yes

yeah so how do how are things inherited

things are inherited you understand it

doesn't matter you want me to give you

the birds and bees talk because you know

that dna comes from your parents right

um

yes what's your point

so your dna is a like a part of your mom

and a part of your dad and it makes you

different dna is not a gene dna is

something inside of itself

dna is something inside of a cell's

nucleus

any codes for a gene

no it does not

yes yes they yeah they do you don't even

know what you're saying dna

they don't say dna

do not say it codes for dna

they say that there are strands of dna

that and that's what genes are the

strands of dna

no dude the strand do you know what the

dna is made out of

out of human bases right

do you know

the strands of those bases

are called genes

by these codes so a specific length of

code

it's not a code don't call it a [ __ ]

code you [ __ ] write it computers nerd

it's not a [ __ ] code

man look at crispr okay if jeans weren't

real what the [ __ ] is chris i'll explain

crisper crisper is a complete scandalous

failure which does not work

this is really something

hold on hold on

not intergenerationally not across

several generations no it does not

you know that um you didn't know that

even after genetic modifications into

the dna

that for whatever reason

generationally it returns to the

original thing and the body treats it as

like a

foreign um

uh

foreign

injury it treats it as an injury

we haven't had crispr for generations

yet but with gmos that's how you didn't

know that's how gmos work

the organism treats the genetic mod the

organism treats for whatever reason the

genetic modification

as an injury

and it corrects for the injury across

gen generations

it treats it as yeah it it like

recognizes uh specific

uh no so there's an epigenetic reason

for that when you alter plants

genetically

across several generations they don't

retain the changes so if you're altering

them genetically aren't you already

admitting to the fact that there are

genes no because what i'm claiming is

that all you're doing is butchering and

mutilating the organism across several

generations

let me let me make a correction

across several generations

i don't i'm not certain that they

correct the modifications but what i do

know is that across generations the

intended phenotypes don't survive and

the organism actually tends

to become corrupted and no longer

reproducible which is why there's so

many new generations of gmos that always

have to be created because it's not

sustainable

we're actually sustaining life across

generations when you're modifying these

genes this dna

you're effectively butchering the inards

of an organism and that you're no

there's no facts in what you're saying

right now

so do you not realize that gmos don't

last across generations they do no they

don't

they literally do not i don't know how

you could be so [ __ ] ignorant that

you don't know this

gmos literally do not survive across

generations they don't they always

they always have to [ __ ] come up with

new modifications for new generations

because they're not sustainable they can

breed i don't know what you're talking

about

not

across several generations

yes they can

okay i i apparently need to show you

like a source or something because we've

come to this crossroads so let me just

do that

gmos

like obviously you could just hold on

i'm getting it for you certain organisms

so that they can't breathe

what is it the yeah yeah bananas don't

even have a seed anymore because they've

been so corrupted by gmos i mean there's

just

so much evidence for this

i'm going to there are right now is that

you can like i'm not saying you can't

make genetic changes that could make an

organism not breed i'm just saying not

i'm not i'm just saying that genetic

modification doesn't naturally lead to

that right but yes it does genetically

listen someone put it in fact checking i

have to argue with this guy he's not

giving me time to look it up he's

arguing instead listen

someone put it in fact checking listen

when you modify an organism genetically

you're basically [ __ ] the organism up

that's pretty much that

no you're modifying it you're [ __ ] it

up you're ruining it well i mean if if

you want to say modifying its genes

that's what it means and sure but you're

[ __ ] up how it works

i mean you're changing how it works

you're [ __ ] you're making it so it it

becomes corrupted and doesn't live

across generations no it does live yeah

it can live no it doesn't no it doesn't

depend like they're like i said it

becomes corrupted which means it becomes

corrupted and degenerates across [ __ ]

generations

i think the mule can't breed right like

there are things that happen that way

but um listen listen these are specific

changes you are literally you are

literally such a [ __ ] idiot you're

literally such a [ __ ] idiot that you

go all over the place

breeding dogs and horses and mules is

not the same as [ __ ] genetic

modification

that is no it's not genetic modification

is when you directly go to the [ __ ]

gene

and change it

not when you have things [ __ ] and

crossbreed in interesting ways you

modify genetics gmos are not just a

result of cross breeding how do you not

[ __ ] know that

no uh yeah uh selective

selective breeding is genetically

modified genetic modification but that's

not what is meant by gmos it is a it is

a type of genetic modification okay

that's your little nerd actually but i

reject that that's what we're arguing

about right now is the way in which [ __ ]

reproduces genetic so you're [ __ ]

arguing the premise right now by saying

that

uh yeah exactly you're arguing the

premise which is a form of circular

reasoning you [ __ ] dumbass

like you can't you haven't yet provided

any evidence that disproves that the

idea of genetics

okay

speaking that's because you can't bear

with me and use your own [ __ ] head

this is i'm inventing a logical fallacy

which is called the logical fallacy

of

wanting me to flash my [ __ ]

and the flashing [ __ ] part is where

you're like instead of having to walk

you instead of actually thinking

rationally about what i'm arguing you

just want me to show you something that

just proves it just show you my [ __ ] to

show you something that just immediately

makes you submit to what i'm saying

that's what you want right you want the

logical fallacy of flashing the [ __ ]

that's not how a debate works i can't

just show you an authority

listen you want a phallus you want me to

just show you a phallus that's going to

beat you into submission i can't do that

right you what you literally want me to

do is just to show you a phallus that's

going to beat you into submission

you literally want me to show you a

phallus you want me to show you a

phallus that's gonna slap you into

submission that's not how arguments work

you think that science can be applied to

theory somehow but that's science no

science i don't care about your dumbass

um philosophy of science which i wipe my

ass off

i wipe my ass with your dumbass

i don't care about your 12 year old

speculation about what

is like [ __ ] that's not you know that

what science

beyond it you have to show me evidence

in science yeah you want me to you want

me to show you a phallus my [ __ ]

no i also declined

you keep you keep bringing it up though

so you seem pretty eager to share yeah

yeah because you're saying show me

evidence

you are are you like some kind of

empiricist where you think that truth is

just showing you things you just want to

sense it you don't actually have to

mediate it rationally

you don't have to like mediate

empirical reality rationally i just it's

just there it's just there

like for example i can i can show you

okay for example look on my stream no

shut the [ __ ] up and look at my stream

right now i can show you this sunglasses

right

how you make sense of it is going to not

be something

that's going to be contained just from

me showing you sunglasses i can't just

show you sunglasses

and

argue that they look cool

when i if i tell you they look cool

i have to explain the aesthetical

reasons and where i'm coming from i just

showing you is not going to be enough

you understand so what actually is

empirically in dispute here let's get to

that what do you want empirically

okay so your claim is that genetic is is

genetic the field of genetics is false

right yeah

okay so

what evidence do you have for that

so you what you are trying to say is

that there is a direct

sense stimuli on my five senses that

leads me to that conclusion right

that leads you to the conclusion that

yeah that genetics is false so you're

saying what is your evidence that

genetics is fast

so you're basically asking for a direct

source of sensory stimulation

that leads me to that conclusion why do

you why do you believe what you believe

yeah okay

well firstly

when you say yeah you're basically

saying yes i want a direct sensory

source of stimulation i want to know why

you believe what you believe okay if you

want to know why i believe what i

believe why don't you just rewind the

vod and how i can tell you about how

lysenko explains how macro organisms

work in terms of what we know now about

microbiology better than genetics

geneticists can do and then actually the

burden of proof is on the metaphysicians

you call scientists

to prove genes exist which they haven't

so why should i believe in genes

no genes have been proven time and time

again okay how

so we can actually look at them right

we've coded specific genes you can look

at my bare ass you can look at my bare

[ __ ] hairy ass prove to me it's a

joke

that's not the point right that is the

[ __ ] point

dna i'm asking you to prove dna is a

gene don't [ __ ] tell me you look at

dna and that's proves the gene you have

to make the argument that dna is a gene

okay or it's full of genes

so how have you proven genes what does

it mean what is the first one we'd have

to define what is a gene to you a gene

is a unit of heredity

right so there are units of heredity

found within the the uh dna within the

genetic code prove it

what do you mean by prove it prove it

prove they function as units of heredity

you're

you're talking about what like things

that we've observed so for example that

the gene functions as a unit of heredity

so you want me to find you a specific

gene that codes for a specific thing or

i want you to show me a gene that

functions in real life as a unit of

heredity

the unit of the heredity of an uh a

trait what does that mean

it sounds like you're stumped by the

bewildering metaphysics of genetics

which is the point it's [ __ ] stupid

doesn't make sense

okay i'm asking you by your own

qualifications because you asked me

first

for a

evidence that shows a gene

functioning as a unit of heredity

so a specific gene that leads to a

specific trait

as a unit of heredity

prove it

so we know that things like uh

things like alzheimer's things like

huntington's okay stop stop stop stop

stop

i want one example i don't want five

billion that i have to

pump down

alzheimer's what is the gene that is the

unit of heredity of alzheimer's

uh i don't know that by heart so i'd

have please look it up

and link the study so i can look at it

on stream

um

i don't even know if that's a known one

right

like if we know the exact line of code i

can find you an exact line of code if

that's what if that's what you're asking

for

so when i asked you for a unit of

heredity and how it functions as

universe you told me alzheimer's and we

don't know actually

well we don't know exactly well you

don't know exactly so shut the [ __ ] up

and stop acting like there's evidence

there's not okay there is okay

i just can't find one please find one

that you do know this time

okay

okay so the lax z gene encodes the

portion of the mrna that is responsible

for the production of beta

uh

galactosidase and translates

can you can you repeat that again

yeah so the last z gene

the lac z gene yeah lac lac

yeah yeah laccz lacc gene go ahead yeah

that encodes for the portion

for the portion of mrna go ahead

that's responsible for the

responsibility for the production

of beta galactosidase of

beta-galactosidase what are beta

galactosidies

uh it's a specific enzyme okay for the

production of an enzyme so you named me

a strand of dna that appears to be

responsible

for the mrna

that produces an enzyme yeah so the mrna

translates from the dna right yeah and

then it

produces it produces a specific enzyme

right but now that it's been proven i

mean okay first of all there's two

prongs to this the first prong is that's

not a [ __ ] unit of heredity that's an

intra micro that's an intracellular

intra cell you're not inter

intracellular

process you're describing me about how

dna functions i never denied dna

functions in a certain way for a cell

so for you to say it's a unit of

heredity is [ __ ] stupid but that's

what a gene is okay

no it's not no it's not because just

because the dna functions in this way

within a cell doesn't mean it's a unit

of heredity okay a unit of heredity

would be more like

the alzheimer's example you couldn't

[ __ ] give me something that actually

expresses and manifests at the

phenotypical level okay some things are

very complex right okay i'm talking

about phenotypical traits first of all

the second point hold on hold on the

second point right

hold on shut the [ __ ] up

and there's multiple things involved

there's many genes working together

trust me guys the gene thing is not

wrong there's just multiple thousands of

genes where it's smps now

shut the [ __ ] up but if you talk about

shut the [ __ ] up shut the [ __ ] up shut

the [ __ ] up shut the [ __ ] up shut the

[ __ ] up

okay i have to mute the dumb ass i have

to mute him he doesn't know how to shut

the [ __ ] up he doesn't know where he is

he doesn't know where he is shut your

[ __ ] gobbling chicken mouth you are a

gobbling chick

shut the [ __ ] up

second of all

okay

there's two prongs the first one

which you're gobbling had nothing to do

with which was that you didn't even

prove a unit of heredity all you proved

is that a segment of dna

appears to have some relationship to an

enzyme

at an intracellular level well that

doesn't [ __ ] prove anything about a

gene

the because when it comes to

phenotypical traits

you don't have a direct relation from

the enzyme to the trait okay so because

everything works together

but that's just if i granted you that

the truth is is that we know

that proteins and enzymes

a variety of proteins and enzymes

can be produced

based on the same gene

which basically means and that's the

whole purport of epigenetics

that there is something responsible for

why

proteins and enzymes

give expression in the way that they do

are produced in the way they are

that is beyond the gene

so two prongs

you didn't want to [ __ ] let me get my

second prong in

you just wanted to ramble by that one is

really complex i don't care how complic

that has nothing to do with anything you

have failed to give me a unit of

heredity

now let's hear your argument

so i provided a unit

no you did not

yes i did i no you did not

no you do not

code for a specific enzyme right

so that's a direct you literally are an

npc

who does not i had two prongs to my

argument first you have not proven

that the gene is responsible for the

enzyme even because multiple different

enzymes can be produced from the same

gene

no you haven't

because if multiple different enzymes

can be produced from the same gene

that means the gene is not what is

[ __ ] essential to it

no that means that there can be other

things involved that doesn't mean that

the gene is essential it means the gene

is not a the essence of why

life right but so is food

okay it's you need to stop pivoting

now

you're making stupid [ __ ] arguments

keep up

you haven't [ __ ] named a single gene

you've named you've named a relationship

between the production of an enzyme and

a certain strand of dna

well too bad

no one denied

the role of dna in the holistic makeup

of of a cell

okay

what i have denied is that dna functions

as a unit of heredity we are talking

about the process of heredity

yeah and

dna is 100

so is everything else

there are other things

there are other things it's more complex

it's more nuanced

yeah is this not the result of paganism

why are you a pagan why are you a pagan

no no no no no you know what since i'm

noticing this pattern and you're not

making any scientific arguments

we have to start talking about religion

and philosophy now because you can't

make scientific never studied actual

science

you have not said a single thing of any

scientific significance

you have not said a single thing of any

scientific significance all you've done

is give expression to the

let the npc speak and i'll tell you why

i interrupt him speak speak

yeah yeah so i mean that's exactly it

right i've proven time and time again

that there are more things that we can

link to the field of genetics multiple

babies

potatoes no mean potatoes no mean

potatoes look at all this salad he's

giving us look at all the [ __ ] salad

he's giving us no meat and potatoes let

me explain something to you i've already

given you all i mean let me go you've

given me sh less than [ __ ] we have to

shift to philosophy and religion now

because you fail at science

so it seems to me the common denominator

to all of your arguments is the reddit

paganism according to which

well forget about an actual underlying

reason

it's complex it's complex it's nuanced

it's nuanced it's complex this is

polytheism this is paganism i'm a

monotheist i believe there is coherent

reasons for things don't [ __ ] tell me

it's complex you have to explain the

complexity explain to me the complexity

in a simple way

i can't give me a coherent paradigm from

which you can explain the complexity

that's what lysenko does that's what

your gene tards fail to do yeah so

lysenko tried to attribute you know like

certain

like ideas certain theological ideas

certain philosophical ideas marxism

mostly no we decided

came from the russian tradition of agra

agronomy of ivan mitcherin who is not a

marxist it just so happened to be

lysenko saw dialectical materialism as a

way

to

allow him to to do what he was doing he

didn't use it as the cause for his

beliefs proper settings and expose them

to the rights anglo-saxon dogma did not

allow him

of change that you could educate them to

do anything

that's complete horseshit

that's exactly what he thought no it's

[ __ ] not that's your speculation

about why lysenko's ideas were adopted

that the soy western dumbasses [ __ ]

westerners have come up with

but there's no evidence for the view

that oh lysenko's ideas were used as a

way to serve change human nature the

soviets never saw human nature as a

problem to begin with they don't think

it needs to be changed

uh what do you thought no he believed

that if you put a specific being that it

wasn't you know there wasn't gradualism

that it wasn't necessary for you to wait

uh for the process that's already that's

already accepted in mainstream science

that's already accepted in the theory of

punctuation even the men that is not

true shut the [ __ ] up holy [ __ ] even the

[ __ ] mendeloids now agree there's

punctuated equilibrium and that

speciation is not a gradual process but

a process of violent rapid changes in

geology so shut the [ __ ] up about your

gradualism cope

that's not true at all good really great

punctuated equilibrium is not basically

accepted in mainstream biology

there are still extremely gradual

changes with evolution like what ears

name them

how we came from monkeys can you prove

we don't know [ __ ] about how we came

from monkeys yeah we do we have a ton of

fossils

we don't know how we came from monkeys

dumbass how was it graduating we have so

many intermediate species between us and

monkeys that it's insane okay but you

have yet to prove a process of gradual

change

yeah you know yeah we can visualize it

yeah we have the fossils

you can go having fossils does not mean

you prove there is the change was

gradual yeah you can date them the

special okay when you differentiate

those fossils based on different species

you have to prove the speciation was

gradual not that there was different a

variety of listen if there's a million

years let's say let's probably what 20

10 20 million between us and monkeys

supposedly

if you find a bunch of different fossils

that's not proof of gradualism that's

proof of a bunch of different fossils

you have to prove that the process of

spending you have to prove that the

process of one fossil leading to another

was gradual rather than punctuated by

geological catastrophes

they weren't punctuated by geological

because you're not familiar with the

mainstream theory of punctuated

equilibrium yeah that's not that's not

factual that's not how evolution has

propagated itself for like wait so now

you're saying punctuated equilibrium is

not factual

i'm saying that

that evolution is for certain gradual so

guys let me let me explain let me let me

explain to you this guys you're saying

for certain it's gradual something no

one knows you're saying for certain let

me explain

i just want to use this as an i just

want to use this as an example of

okay i just want to use this as an

example of the [ __ ] idiocy of the

mendeloy evolutionary track right so for

example when certain

organisms are led extinct right like

when the dinosaurs were extinct right

that's a huge massive shift in the

evolutionary track right so yeah that

made a huge i don't care about your

nuance mongrey listen

chance chance chance

i am going to sleep listening to you

because

i'm not muting him i have to mute the

dumbass mute the dumbass mute the

dumbass mute the dumbass shut his voice

off he's so [ __ ] boring you would

never be a good streamer i listen to you

i want to turn off my tv you say nothing

of value nothing you say has me in

positions nothing you say has any

substance you're a complete time waster

here's the [ __ ] point you have yet to

prove speciation is gradual

i'm not even gonna waste time on this

because punctuated equilibrium is very

much accepted by mainstream scientific

establishment right now i just want to

use it as an example and this is what i

wanted to set out to show you

how

why are people so willing to believe

in genetics and reject lysenko and all

this stuff

when by their own logic

this guy's saying punctuated equilibrium

is wrong it's for certain that it's

gradual it's like still debated by

scientists to this day there's nothing

certain right punctuated equilibrium has

a lot of evidence behind it this is

known in the scientific establishment

okay the biological evolutionary

whatever it's part of evolutionary

synthesis they're trying to integrate it

this just goes to show you that these

people don't think in terms of any like

scientific discoveries they think in

terms of ideology he has literally just

said he rejects punctuated equilibrium

an absurd claim

because of his defense dogmatic defense

of darwinian dogma

he's saying things not because they're

true

but because they're ideologically

coherent for him and his coherency is

paganism well it's nuanced well it's

complex

my [ __ ]

is complex

but your mom

[Music]

can suck it

very simply

so you're weak that's why you have to

constantly mute me no i don't because

you gobble like a chicken saying no that

i don't reject okay let me okay listen

i'm gonna let you say what you wanted to

say punctuated equilibrium right

has played a role in the evolutionary

tract i said that right that that like

the wiping out of the dinosaur example

right that's not the main example of

punctuated equilibrium massive shift in

the evolutionary that's something you

learned when you were eight years old

that's not an example of punctuated

equilibrium or main example

well that would be one yeah but that's

how it's not a main example no it's not

that's like something that's some [ __ ]

you learned when you were five years old

and you think i'm using it because i'm

talking to a person who hasn't learned

beyond that you haven't learned [ __ ] you

didn't even know what it was before i

[ __ ] mentioned it to you you know so

little about biology

man i know more about biology than you

do you didn't know what punctuated

equilibrium was before you [ __ ]

googled it just now because i told you

to no i was talking about it before you

muted me no you weren't you just [ __ ]

mentioned that okay can you give me an

example without without googling without

googling without googling very quick

without googling very quick give me an

example of punctuate equilibrium besides

the dinosaurs go ahead

ice ages

no

no you're just naming extinction level

events give me a specific example like

on an island with geckos

because this is what the examples they

use they don't use these broad narrative

extinction level events that wipe off a

bunch of [ __ ]

species specific examples in islands

where there's volcanoes they use

specific examples like islands where

there's volcanoes or earthquakes and

[ __ ] like that that's what they they

don't use these broad historic the

dinosaurs when i was five i learned

about this shut the [ __ ] up and give me

an actual example of punctuated

equilibrium since you know more about it

than me

so are you talking about like yeah again

a specific example of how punctuated

equilibrium works

specifically

if a species were to be uh like when you

were talking about islands with a

species no no you can't use my island

example because that's what i gave you

so i want to draw from your knowledge

now

yeah so i'm not gonna use geckos or

anything right i'm going to talk your

knowledge of how punctuated equilibrium

works you can't google it you cannot

google it give me it right now 15

seconds if you can't you don't know [ __ ]

15 talk about 14

right so they're a dwarf they're dwarf

elephants and you love indonesia

okay oh you didn't look that up right

now

no i didn't okay okay

punctuated equilibrium examples i'm

looking this up on google if i see those

[ __ ] dwarf elephants

then

you're [ __ ]

you're

okay you're looking it up on google and

you're saying if you find it that i'm

[ __ ] yeah because it proved you just

googled it so it shouldn't be on google

not on the first [ __ ] page

if you google it because it's such a

specific example the [ __ ] elephants

in indonesia right

right exactly so google what are you

gonna google

what do you don't worry what i'm gonna

google

well google it because i didn't like it

oh my god

i didn't search it myself

oh you didn't where did you get it from

i well i had watched a youtube video on

it by a guy named stefan milo i don't

know if you know so you just watched the

youtube video just now no i didn't just

watch a youtube video i watched it a

while ago oh you watched it a while ago

okay so you just admitted where you got

it from you just admitted where you got

it from just now thanks

so go on about the indonesia

what go on go on explain your example

right so these this population of

elephants was

separated from you know the main

population that we know

they uh you know suffered from a process

known as island dwarfishes

there's two processes called island

dwarfism and island gigantism which is

give me where punctuated equilibrium

fits in

well it's a geological change right

so what was the geological change

the island was split off from the

mainland

because is this a gradual process or a

punctuated process the sea level changed

okay that's not punctuated equilibrium

dumbass that's a gradual geological

change leading to a [ __ ] uh

biological population was cut off

from that's still not punctuated

equilibrium

it's in the name it's punctuated dumbass

it's a punctuated change which means it

happens very quickly

that did happen quickly did the island

split off very quickly

it didn't split off like i said it was a

c level change

and that was very that was very quick

yeah how quick

i don't know exactly how quick

you literally don't know [ __ ] about

biology i don't know the exact amount of

time it took you don't know [ __ ] about

biology you don't know a [ __ ] thing

you know less about biology

than a [ __ ] 12th grader

okay sure

you can say what you want but you're not

making any arguments because i you

literally didn't even know what

punctuated equilibrium was before i told

you

that's not true yes it [ __ ] is you

literally said you i literally have you

on [ __ ] record in my video saying

that it's wrong and that it's all

gradual we know that for certain no i

said we know for certain that that

evolution is gradual i never said we

don't okay how do you know for that for

certain how do you know for sure

because we can observe the fossil record

how does the fossil record prove gradual

change

because these things happened over

millions of years does that is that the

definition of gradual dumb ass

yes you know what speciation is

over millions of years then that is

gradual

are these fossils between the different

species

of the fossils

which you have to trace together by the

way

are they punctuated by rapid geological

changes

most of the time yes they [ __ ] are

no they are

how do you know they're only punctuated

by our findings right so every time we

find a new one

three new hominid species then by your

own admission if you don't know

if you don't know that yeah this is

exactly it the first there's a first

time chatter in my chat and you just put

it this way you can have a punctuated

evolutionary change over millions of

years holy [ __ ] it's that simple you

could have punctuated evolutionary

changes over millions of years

the fact that it happens over millions

of years does not prove it's gradual

what's the definition of gradual

gradual basically means

that over time

a species just changes

without any punctuated rapid changes

that define like a species well it is

what it means species morph into other

species in a gradual way from one

species to another obviously we'll have

things will be punctuated right

speciation if you're saying evolution is

gradual you're saying speciation is

gradual that's what you're saying

it is gradual yep okay that's what

you're saying

yes and it's wrong

no it's not speciation is not gradual

that's not true yes no yes it is [ __ ]

true

despite a bunch of [ __ ] and fossils over

the course of millions of years from one

species to another

that change is gradual you don't just

you never find in the fossil record one

species slowly becoming another

the same species slowly becoming another

species

when a species

arises it arises in a rapid way

through punctuated equilibrium

you have no evidence of that

it's literally books weighted

equilibrium yes there is [ __ ] a ton

of evidence in favor of it there's a ton

of evidence in favor of that

there's no evidence in favor of gradual

speciation there's a time in favor of

punctuated equilibrium as the source of

speciation there's a ton

no there's plenty for gradualism okay

name one

well the fact that we thought we

continued to find

more missing shut the [ __ ] up about the

fossil record i'm gonna explain this to

you in a simple way i have to do i have

to mute you you are devoid of

ahead

you are devoid of thoughts you are

devoid of thoughts you are empty you are

an empty-headed airheaded dumbass devoid

of any independent thought you gobble

like a chicken saying nothing i'm gonna

mute you just so you don't interrupt me

very quickly to explain this to you and

i want you to listen to my words very

slowly because i'm not going to repeat

myself again

okay

on the fossil record you find fossils of

various different species

which you claim are missing links from

one species to another

that's fine those are still different

species

from one species to another

you have to prove

that the change is gradual

that is what you cannot prove or provide

me evidence for

that one species slowly changes into

another

when it does that there can't be missing

links in between

because that implies speciation that's

one species becoming another species

is what i'm looking for

not

multiple species between species

one species

becoming another can you prove that that

is a gradual change because you're not

going to find it on the fossil record

because fossils

are only going to give you the fossil of

the same species if it gives you another

species it's already speciated into

another species

so what happens in between that's what

[ __ ] matters

and according to the theory of

punctuated equilibrium and according to

the evidence we found

the process by which

these

missing links are separated from one

another are punctuated

by geological changes that happen very

rapidly comparatively

so it's that [ __ ] simple

you can't gobble like a chicken now but

notice when you're when you're devoid

and

stripped of your gobbling abilities

it becomes that simple

go ahead

okay so you want an example of a species

becoming another species gradually

okay

so um

dogs we made dogs

right and we

we developed all kinds of different

dogs

a different breeds of dogs right they're

not wolves anymore like look at the

chihuahua tell me it's the same thing

okay hold on hold on look at a chihuahua

and compare it to an alaskan husky

okay did you know that the speciation

between dogs and wolves is arbitrary

because dogs and gray wolves by the same

logic are part of the same species canis

lupus

so no they're not part of a different

species than wolves

domesticus is the dog

but that's an arbitrary difference

because they can mate with each other

they can breed with each other some of

them not all of them well not all dog

breeds can even breed with each other

and you probably can you can't you

probably can't breed you probably can't

breed with uh your second cousin or some

[ __ ] and that doesn't mean you're not

part of the same species

we watched all of those speciations

happen

what speciations dog breeds are not

different species from wolf to dog we

did that but they're still part of the

same species

do you not know that like we've got new

they're not you got [ __ ] that looks new

but that's not what defines a species

it's not just [ __ ] that looks different

yeah it's

that has to you know it's a gray area

yeah yeah it sucked my ass

it's significant and suck my ass with

your gray area

it's true though biology you know there

are two types of

yeah another concession i just keep

getting a lot of those from you don't

want to lump things together and they're

types of biologists who want to make

very distinct specific categories

but there's no biologist who's going to

say they're different species

that dogs and wolves are different

species they're not they're part of the

same species

um what you're talking about is

subspecies but that's not speciation

we also have speciation especially with

plants right because it happens quicker

with

okay give me an example of gradual

change

in nature i

think it was what american goatsberg

how did it change gradually

we've

over the last like 100 years we've seen

speciation of the it's not gradual

though

how's that not gradual

100 years on the evolutionary time scale

is gradual

so they changed right we've we've

watched different species yeah we've

changed it because of violent

dramatically induced changes

they changed

they changed because of violently

dramatically and

it's like how um what are you saying in

a hundred years we've saw a [ __ ]

species change because of a rapid

[ __ ] environmental traumatic of

course okay that's a very rapid change

what am i [ __ ] listening to what is

this

what are you talking about so what do

you want me to point to do you want me

to point these things that like small

changes i know you can't point listen

chance to be clear i know you can't

point to anything and that's my point so

the thing is that

it's not

when you find another fossil it's not

necessarily another species right as you

said it has to be you know a certain

amount different than the original

species in order for it to be considered

a new species and we've seen that um you

know the same species will have

different traits and that these traits

over time don't change yeah this happens

hold on

you don't see you don't see species

gradually becoming another you see a

abrupt difference between the original

species and the speciation

no you can watch like whales and you can

watch the way that they've please watch

you can see how these changes have

happened gradually over time no they

don't because from one species to

another it's abrupt another species when

something like that okay so you're

saying it's the same species of whale

and it gradually is changing

yeah okay give me one example of that it

becomes recognized as a different

species give me one example of that

so between one species and another in

between that you're saying there's

fossils proving the gradual change give

me one example of that

it was it was like something like the

finn development in whale

so for according to you wales developed

fins

without species without speciation like

and like the you can watch it at the

same thing and can you give me a can you

give me evidence can you give me

evidence

we're focusing on the whales right now

we'll get to the birds after give me

evidence of the whales and you can look

at it in again you have to look at it

give me evidence of the [ __ ] whales

give me evidence of the [ __ ] whales

see you want me to find you an article

okay find me something

so god help me find me something

and i swear to god if this is not what i

asked you for

you will wear the mark of shame for the

rest of your days and your mother will

not look at you the same

okay you like being dramatic huh

okay here we go i think i got it

so yeah because these are mammals right

that are found

that are found in water right and so

they eventually

um

like found their way

onto land and then back into the sea and

we can see that

show me how

the same species was doing that

gradually

without becoming another species

entirely

okay so you want this in fact check yes

okay okay we're gonna go through this

article

together

how did whales evolve

from the smithsonian magazine how did

whales evolve

okay where in the part that i'm looking

for this do i find a single species of

whale gradually changing into another

species of something so

whale is what we call it now right i

don't care call it what you want just

give me the part of the article i should

be looking over that that is relevant

i can't see your stream

just show me what i should be focusing

on the the incriminating evidence

just read the article i'm not reading

the whole [ __ ] thing you show me

what's relevant in this [ __ ] article

what is the damning evidence i'm

supposed to be looking for

because all i'm seeing is different

species

and not one species gradually acquiring

characteristics over time i'm seeing one

species change to another

what do you mean by different species

do you know the whole point of this is

that's what i'm looking for

is one species gradually

changing to another

huxley thought that the basilosaurus at

least represented the type of animal

that linked whales to their

real but that's just different species

isn't it

so where is the gradual change

responsible for speciation it's in the

fossil record

dumb as dumb ass dumb ass dumb

different pictures

do you want pictures is that what you

need do you need a picture book

can i ask you a question

are you at the age where you need to i

ask you a question

go ahead are you stupid

we could save time if you just admit

you're stupid

here i'll uh i'll link i'll link you are

you stupid

are you stupid are you stupid

are you stupid

are you stupid it's a picture

are you stupid

can i not send a picture okay

chat can you look at my chat right now

everyone copy and paste

one two fives message look at my chat

right now

please look at my channel

i don't care everyone copy and paste

thank you 125's message

paste it in the chat

look at my chat right now

no i don't care about your chat

look at my chat right now

i refuse to i'm it's gonna be very

simple because it's one sentence

yeah i refuse to look at your chat

i don't look at chat while i talk i

asked you for evidence of gradual change

from one species to another and you gave

me evidence of species

linking two different species

which means the qualitative change

between one species into another is not

even addressed

in this [ __ ] so-called source you

gave me that you made me wait for

yeah you can you can actually watch

you can watch the evolution of different

parts of like bird wings and you can

watch the evolution okay within the same

species within the same species

within the same species

yes

give me an example of that

because you [ __ ] up on whales and

we're going to birds now okay chat

stop you [ __ ] up on whales so now

we're going to birds give me an example

of the birds

i'll post you another picture because

that's what you like no i want an actual

source because this is actually a debate

about

who's a dumb [ __ ] and who's not no you

want you want pictures by the way when

you lose this debate it's not just you

lost a debate you lost your entire

manhood you lost your honor you lost

your dignity you lost any face your mom

will not look at you the same and all of

this so

you not taking this seriously

um doesn't bode well for you i don't

think you seriously yeah

okay because you're bluffing because if

you do try and seriously argue what

you're trying to argue you're gonna get

[ __ ]

right so you're just gonna say oh never

meant actually i was trolling the whole

time no i'm not trolling i'm actually

being very okay so be serious and give

me your birds give me your birds

give you more whales and i also gave you

birds your whales are nothing because

your whales don't have anything to do

with qualitative change of species

yeah they do no they don't you only

described the missing link between two

species which was the missing link being

another species where does one species

gradually change to another you haven't

given me one example

yeah i've linked like a bunch of stuff

in your chat okay let's see what you've

linked

i can keep going origin of wales

okay

now

listen

look what he linked guys look what he

linked look at this picture for example

yeah how many species are in this

picture how many species are in this

picture

they're all whales

well how many species are in this

picture

one two i don't know what three looking

at

between all of these different whales

we don't know anything we just know

they're different species

i am

no we we have the development like we

have changes

within one species to another where's

the change within one species to another

where's the gradual change

okay

you know how much content i can just

farm based on people being naturally

dumbasses this is the evolution of

digits and the origin of the bird wing

okay so this is a very specific

good good i hope this is your [ __ ]

saving grace because

you're not doing well at all here

the evolution of digits and the origin

of the bird wing to understand how

digits evolved

okay

where am i gonna find

so what is the one species we're dealing

with here

well so this is the evolution of digits

right

so it's a specific thing

is it is is a digit of species you're

talking about what are you talking about

a digit like pretty much everything has

digits um like there are digits in a

whale fin there are digits in a bird

wing there are digits in your hand

right like your fingers are digits

so think of that but like a bird wing do

you or do you not understand what i'm

asking you for

yeah i understand exactly what am i

asking for

you're asking for gradual changes over

time

no i'm not what am i specifically asking

for you're asking for proof of that

evolution is gradual

gradually what am i specifically asking

for

what am i specif okay there you go

now try again what am i asking for

you're asking for

small changes over time that lead to

speciation yes

yes

yes

yes

finally can you give me one example of

that

i already did yeah the whales

but the whales you showed me were all

different species that's the problem

just like dogs are different right

dogs are the same species as wolves you

didn't show me a bunch of different

subspecies part of the same species

you showed me different species of whale

can you give me one example of the

process of speciation

resulting from gradual changes over time

by the way guys this is your average

mendelian here average men deloitte here

by the way this is what the genetics

people this is how they think this is

how they reason by the way for the chat

and that's exactly the way it works

right

give me one example

what do you mean by that

one example of evidence because you said

it's certain

of speciation being gradual

then you understand that like whales

like modern whales there's a lot of

subspecies but whales are a large cat

no because there are different species

of whale

a whale is not a species

a whale is just a word we use to

describe multiple different species the

modern ballena is a species yeah the

what

the modern whale is a species

no it's not

no it's not there are multiple different

species of whale it's not one species

you just said something that's wrong are

you gonna take the l on that

yeah no there are different species of

whales okay so what is you just say

wrong things there is like there are

there are categories right so there are

large overarching characters not know

how taximoney works i thought you're a

biologist i thought you're a biologist

do you not know how taximony works

yeah

kingdom phylum

order genus species

okay

okay

anything else

what do you mean

i'm waiting for the evidence

so i linked a whole bunch of stuff in

your check

of what i okay what did i ask you for

this is the spongebob thing of the guy

showing patrick the idea is this your id

and then he just it's a loop it's a loop

okay what did i ask you for

the same species changing

yes

gradually over and becoming a different

species right gradually over time i need

to show you different species right you

know you need to show me one species

gradually changing

until it finally speciates into another

species

yes so can you provide evidence for that

yeah like i said you can explore the

different types of small changes that

led from like dinosaurs all the way to

sure can you give me one example of one

species undergoing gradual changes until

it becomes a different species

all these species that i link to you can

you can examine them closer and find

like small little changes i can't i

can't can you give me one example of

that just one

yeah like i said from here from the

modern from the

the this last thing this last photo that

i showed you okay this is a good example

here we go where

the last photo that i linked in your

great that's a good photo where where it

goes from one species and you can see

the gradual

the different species right and if you

look up the timeline between these

species you'll see fossils that

gradually change between them as well

right now you can't look

look up

the exact because they don't have a name

right for what's the problem with this

photo

there's no problem with the photo really

how many different species are in this

photo

like i said they're i'm gonna have to

show you multiple speeds right

so this is not evidence this is not the

evidence i asked for is it

the first two you can all you could like

this is the thing you can see the

gradual change no you can see a change

between species

not within species

you understand that some of these things

the change between species appears

gradual

but the change within the species is

nowhere to be found

no we can see that you can't see it

how can you say

how can you say that

because but this doesn't even prove

anything by the way it just proves that

there's a structural similarity at hand

it doesn't actually prove anything

like if i was a creationist i'd wipe the

floor with you doesn't even prove

evolution let alone gradual change

okay

so

you know about darwin's finches

okay

i'm gonna ask you for the last time

what am i asking for

you're asking for the same species that

have differences

that lead the same species that lead to

speciation eventually yes

right give me one example of that

okay so darwin's finches

okay what about darwin's finches

right so they showed give me the

evidence too so we can read it

okay

okay i looked up darwin's i'm saving

time now because you're a time waster i

looked it up on wikipedia okay oh okay

if you want to go for that

and i'm going to highlight the relevant

thing for chat

the fact that you look on my screen

i can't see your screen

okay how many species of

birds

are encompassed by darwin's finches

so finch is one species

are you sure about that

the

not not 100 there might be different

species what percentage of certainty are

you that it's one species

uh

i think that there might be multiple

how certain are you of there being one

i'm not very certain that there's only

one other thing but you said you said

there's one and then you said you're

certain

i never said i was certain i said i

don't think i'm very certain and there

being just one

okay

and then i said how certain are you and

being yeah i wouldn't i wouldn't bet

money on it

that's fine what percentage i think they

said you said you're not 100 no first

you said

first

first you said you're not 100

then i asked you okay what percent then

and then you said actually i'm certain

that there's multiple not one did you

change your mind i never said i was

certain what do you think what do you

think more likely that there are

multiple that what do you think

i think that there are probably more

than one

then why did you say it's one species

because at first i said i thought yeah

okay it's just species and now that so

wait when i asked you for this example

first one when i asked you

one when i asked you for an example

for what i was asking for and you said

darwin's finches

would you say this is not a right

example

it is a right example why

because the birds change over time

the mostly the b it's mostly about the

beak shape

and they do eventually become different

species because um

okay

because i guess that's how you said but

you said it's one

species which was the decisive thing for

this being relevant to me right well it

started off as one species right

that's not relevant

there are 18 species of bird encompassed

by darwin's finches

yeah

there is zero evidence

of speciation

that's not true

what's the evidence

what do you mean

okay i am an atari in my chat said

you're giving evidence for adaptive

radiation and adaptive radiation is

actually an example of punctuated

equilibrium not gradual speciation

that's not true at all there are gradual

changes that

okay but i asked you for one and this is

not that

what do you mean

this is an example of adaptive radiation

no it's not yes it is

do you know what adaptive radiation is

no you want to explain it to me

well you're the b you said you know more

about biology than me so you should know

it right you seem to want to explain

everything to me so why don't you do it

okay

because you seem to think when when

there is a sudden ecological change

there's a radiation of organisms

right that adapt to different ecologies

right

that's not a gradual change

that's a result of

different environmental differences

proportionate

to the change

all changes are going to be due to some

sort of environment no no but that's not

a gradual process is the problem it's a

very sudden punctuated process you mean

it's not a gradual process

how is it not a gradual process because

it happens very suddenly on the

evolutionary time scale

except

so what do you mean by sun so you're i

mean sudden in the sense of punctuated

equilibrium that's what i mean like

you're just pointing to any change in

species and you're saying that that's

punctuated equilibrium and that's a

sudden change because you're saying the

change in species happens gradually over

time and i'm saying this and it does

then you can you can but you have yet to

give me one example of that not one

all evolution we've ever seen has been

graduated prove it

i've already shown you multiple sources

you just claim that they're wrong

did they answer the question i asked you

i have answered your question

this guy's so [ __ ] stupid he's more

stupid than anyone i've ever talked to

in my life

i asked you

for one species

changing to another thank you natrando

i asked you for one species

i asked you for one species

i asked you for one species

into other species right the finch

well that and the

you know dinosaurs that changed into

whales

no

that was all of the examples you gave me

can be proven by punctuated equilibrium

that's not true

see this is one of these very slowly my

ears are ringing now

every time we fight the [ __ ] off

i'm muting him i'm muting him

i cannot [ __ ] i'm muting this dumb [ __ ]

i'm i'm he's muted

y'all i don't know what i'm gonna do i

don't know what i'm gonna do i don't

know what i'm gonna do with my life i

don't know what i'm gonna do

i've never experienced this level of

stupid i don't know what i'm gonna

[ __ ] do i don't know what to say

this is actually driving me insane

i asked you

for gradual space changes

within one species

leading to another species all you have

given me

is apparently gradual changes between

species

from a to b how do you get there from

one species to another

give me one example of gradual change

within the species itself leading to

speciation

for the last time

just one example

one

am i still muted

you can talk one example

okay so the

evolution

from

homo erectus to homo sapiens

is homo erectus a different species than

homo sapien

yes

so how did homo erectus so is there any

species between erectus and sapien

um

there's some people who if there's one

you just ate a bucket of [ __ ] if there's

one

there are other homo species that

existed like if there's one species

which you're defining as a species

between erectus and sapien you just ate

i don't think there is there's none

there's nothing

i think it's a direct link rectus to

safety and i think and then there are

other branches like a rectangle created

neanderthals and denisovans are

neanderthals a different species than

homo sapiens

yeah

no they're not

yeah they are they're literally not

homo neanderthalensis is different than

homo sapien it is not a different

species which is different than

homogeneity it is not a different

species that's a completely [ __ ]

arbitrary differentiation it's not a

different species

how do you define a species

species are typically defined based on

breeding

that's so one way of doing it that's

probably the most common way of doing it

and sapiens are two different species

no there's a debate and most people say

it's a subspecies of archaic human

and the difference between archaic human

and modern human is also arbitrary that

by archaic human you mean homo erectus

because we also have other fossils that

go

prior to erectus right okay so you're

saying the change

from homo erectus to homo sapiens

was gradual

yeah we can see

homo erectus changing so homo erectus is

slowly becoming so

homo erectus is slowly becoming the

modern human

homo

that already happened yeah yeah so in

the fossil record you're witnessing homo

erectus slowly become modern human with

no punctuator and actually even within

homo sapiens can you focus on the point

yeah i don't care about this well

actually homo erectus is gradually

becoming modern human

yes

in the fossil record

yes okay first i want two things for me

one homo erectus as a different species

not a subspecies

of the same one

second

i want you to prove what you just said

okay so i'll prove first that homorex is

a different

yep

okay

so i'll just link to you the wick beauty

article very simple it just says homo

erectus is an extinct species of archaic

okay

yeah but it's not known if that's a sub

sp that should be treated as a

subspecies

it's a more species species from the

plastine with the earliest occurrence

but

it's specimens

it's okay it's not settled

for neanderthals it's not exactly

settled but for homo erectus it is 100

yeah i'll just give that to you it's

part of the same

species different species yeah i'm sorry

it's a different species sure

so now link me the second thing prove

that homo erectus gradually changed into

i don't know what

okay

so gradual changes in homo erectus

and also

those differences are not punctuated

environmentally by any geological

changes

what do you mean by that

it's just a gradual change with no

geological punctuations in between right

it's a gradual change over time yeah

that's that's not based in geological

change

not not that we link it not okay so

please give me the evidence

okay

homo erectus developmental training

there we go that's what i want

okay

and i can show you a developmental train

of homo sapiens as well by the way where

we haven't been the same

no that's not that there's nothing to do

with speciation i want specifically

right so that's why i'm not pointing to

that right i want specifically the

process of speciation species

about the change in erecting and erectus

eventually became

homo sapien okay go ahead and explain

that

well i i linked the source that shows

that

the trend in the difference is

interactive right

over to the latest one

what's that is this the latest one

homo erectus developmental trends

so this does not look like a reputable

website this looks like a [ __ ]

schizophrenic website from 1997.

let's see

over the lifetime of this species brain

size increases from about 80

850cc in early specimens to 1200cc about

half a million years ago

later within the

lower range of modern human brain sizes

this growth means that the brain size

means the larger brain individuals of

this species gives 50 grams to the brain

size

okay

i need to confirm that the differences

in brain sizes were based on changes

over time

rather than reflecting arbitrary

variation within the same species in

other words they found skulls that were

bigger at this period of time compared

to before

that is exactly what happened yeah but

that doesn't prove that those same that

that wasn't just part of the regular

variance of this species throughout the

entire duration

of its existence

gradually the size of the scope

no but that's not proven necessarily it

could be part of the regular variance of

skull sizes across time and that was

regular variance you wouldn't expect

that it grows over time you don't know

if it grew over time listen to what i

said if you find some at one date

compared to a date before

that could be an arbitrary reflection of

just finding it dated at this time but

it's still part of the normal variance

of homo erectus throughout all of the

duration of its existence so we don't

know

if there was a general change over time

because we don't even have enough

[ __ ] fossils to know about generals

we have more than one so we can create

averages right you can't because let's

say i'm going to [ __ ] break this down

for you have a stupid head

let's say at

i just showed you shut up and now

no no because i'm explaining to you how

this is not even sufficient if you find

a bit a small brain a million years ago

and then you find

a big brain 500 000 years ago

that doesn't mean and necessarily imply

a general change that could just mean

that you found

uh two brain sizes that are well within

the variation within the same species

at all times of its existence but you

just managed to find

this brain at this time

and that's brain at that time

yeah it just so happens that we find

them in the perfect that it well i don't

know i don't know

like if there's variation like do you

find also small brains

how many how many first of all i need to

know the sample size to know it's not

arbitrary second of all of of fossils

samples have been found

to justify the claim of the homo erectus

head size becoming um bigger or smaller

so i'm gonna look up homo erectus

head evolution

yeah like i'm not finding this anywhere

on

the list we have

a number of hold on stop pivoting stop

pivoting

this is this is the evolutionary track

of humans but okay

well we're focusing on homo erectus and

the so-called evidence you just gave me

all the lists came first we would have

less and then so you're saying that

because we found fossils that look

differently that are dated to different

periods that this reflects a general

change in the homo erectus and i'm just

denying that's true we need more i need

more information to confirm that so then

then what evidence could i ever show you

that would be enough because you've said

that showing you different fossils of

difference

because it is so

i'll tell you because you need

you need an extraordinary amount of

evidence beyond the threshold of doubt

because in nature

we tend not to observe gradual changes

within a species

so this would be an extraordinary piece

of evidence

and we we see this change in brain size

not just

but within the other species

before and after okay but i'm talking

about the process of speciation okay

here's the problem here's the problem in

the process of speciation

we existed alongside homo erectus

you know a certain point

until we out bred them yeah

okay well that's just the theory you

don't even know what no they're all gone

we know that yeah we know they're gone

we don't know if it's because we outbred

them

that is exactly what happened we don't

know that you actually don't know if

that's the case if that's the reason

there could be a lot of other reasons

if you say so

okay

so

can you give me examples of gradual

evolution within one species leading to

another

i just did

individual espresso no you didn't okay

we're going in here individual species

very widely

the trends are visible over time

um

line okay there's no sources for this by

the way

homo habilis started to live on

grasslands which domesticated them to

lead to homo erectus then homorexes

started to cook their foods

changed them significantly

so it looks like this is not a gradual

change going on it looks like these are

punctuated changes

actually

punctuated by what

by changes for example in the

environment and by changes

the theory the theory with homo erectus

is that cooking food apparently started

to change something right so

they became a different species

eventually right but i don't know if we

can consider them a different species

when we could still cross breed with

them

we they're like i said breeding isn't an

exact

no it's the reason breeding is not an

egg hold on the reason breeding is not

an exact indication of species changes

in speciation is because there's

examples of things we would consider

within the same species that can't breed

but that doesn't mean if if you can

breed that's a pretty sure sign you're

in the same species that's not

necessarily true are like lions and

tigers have been

they're not in this

um

yes that is true but those tend to be

exceptions and aberrations

not the rule and as far as lions and

tigers are concerned

um

yeah i mean defining species in general

is tough but

when it comes to speciation i mean

that does raise the question are lions

and tigers a different species why do we

consider them a different species so

they can breed like so that's what i'm

saying is that there's a debate in

boston oh no no wait wait wait there

this is important i didn't know this

wait wait ligers are infertile though so

they can't have offspring so that's a

pretty important thing too

yeah it's like mules right where it's

like a horse donkey and they can't have

kids either yeah so that's important

so that's important for defining

whether something's a different species

is the generational um

reproduction

yeah that would be another factor right

but we're talking

with homo erectus and

humans

is there reason to think that if they

bred with one another that there

couldn't be generational breed would

they become infertile

well we know that's not the case because

we still have

we still have

we still have homo erectus dna in us

yeah exactly yeah that's what i was

going to say there are people who have

more or less erectus dna right which

shows cross-breeding definitely happened

it's just like neanderthal okay which

are also so i don't i don't think it's

fair to say homo erectus was a different

species but but they're classified as a

different species but the classification

is arbitrary moments and donated yeah

look at johnson's messages

i have to explain this to you there's

there's okay there's a big difference

this is complicated there's a big

difference

the process of speciation is the process

something something

jax okay give me a second something

changes so i'm meeting up with jackson

later tonight so there's just okay cool

i'm not talking to you right now

i'm talking to chad

there's a process of speciation

okay

where

an organism changes so fundamentally

that it can no longer

cross breed with another

okay

now

most of the speciations we find on the

fossil record

are punctuated by abrupt geological

changes

now there's a degree of variance that

the same species can enter into

okay davis thank you for the money but i

got my message is loud and clear and

i'll check it in a second okay

it's

i'll check it in a second okay

there's a degree of variance within the

same species clearly that's boss i mean

there's a degree of variance between

modern humans i look different from you

you're not as hairy as me

exactly yeah yeah we're not a part of a

different species

and like i said i mean even i i could

show you a develop

at the uh deva

a different track the way that i showed

you with rectus here i can show it to

you with sapiens to change yeah but the

problem is that i'm still looking for an

example of speciation

well this is what speciation is like oh

it's not because it's not clear that

homo erectus is a part of a different

species yes it is

well it's just not i reject that

okay well you can reject it but now

you're rejecting can you ask me why what

determines homo erectus as being a part

of a different species

that's the way it's been classified why

generally a lot of it has to do not just

ability to reproduce but their

perception of each other as as viable

mates

and

eventually

yeah

yeah that that also has to do with

speciation the the way that different

species perceive each other as as

potential mates one it says here

according to nature.com that it's still

debated about whether it is part of

um the same species

what is

homo erectus

so whether erectus is the same as

sapiens

whether we're part of the same species

or what we're dealing with is pretty

much every species is debated right

like i said there's two

there's two major classes of biologists

there's people who want to create broad

categories that encompass things like a

lot of things in one name and then

there's people who process of speciation

i've defined

right as the process of breeding

okay but that's not the way that it's

definitely that it's defined

[Music]

how is it then then you have to admit

species are defined in a completely

arbitrary way

species are yeah they're debated there

are it's not objective speciation is not

objective

okay

speciation is a creation of categories

these these categories that we create

are so

why why didn't you just say that okay

then subspecies gradually changing over

time is an example of what i'm talking

about because what you're trying to

drive it and get home at

is that fundamental differences in um

organisms are the result

of

gradual changes

okay but there's no proof for that

except for the entire fossil record no

there's no proof for it because the

entire fossil record shows different

species

that can't breed with each other chris

moylock donated five dollars okay let me

let me put it right

talk to jackson

it's probably too late for that guys i'm

sorry

i don't know what's going on

listen

the process is

what you're talking about

which you would have to be arguing is

that the development of various

subspecies eventually leads

gradually to a completely new species

that's what you're saying

that is what i'm saying okay

can you give me an example of a link

between a subspecies and a qualitatively

new species

so you're saying

a subspecies becoming a new species yes

so the simple fact that there is a gray

line between when homo erectus becomes

homo sapien and whether or not they're

the same or not shows that fact

what's the line

that they could either be species or

subspecies where is the gray line

where's the gray line where homo erectus

appears

very similar to what i'm saying right

where along the fossil does

truly become homo sapiens right where

does homo habilis truly become homo

erectus right like the we see gradual

changes

between these species eventually we call

them different species we shouldn't hold

on

no no wait wait

here's the problem though right

is that you already agreed that the way

in which we're defining species here is

arbitrary

okay yes

so a subspecies leading to an entirely

new different species

is the question

so a species changing over time and

becoming something that we eventually

right not that we eventually call a

different species but becomes a

fundamentally

a fundamentally different organism for

example homo erectus is not that homo

erectus

we can make breed with it we can made it

would make it

okay sure homo habilis which is before

and before erectus yeah i know

can you give me example of homo habilis

slowly becoming a rectus though because

there you can't

is there gradualism when it comes to

homo habilis

hold on and and also i want to bring

this up

while you're looking for that

because

this is actually very

important um

homo erectus theories of punctuated

change this is behind a pay wall but we

can read some of it

few researchers have generally opposed

the view that homo erectus was the

direct answer for later species

including homo sapiens

uh lewis leakey argued that

energetically that homo erectus

populations program in africa overlap

with more advanced homo sapiens

therefore it cannot be ancestral to the

latter some support for lakey's point of

views come from analysis of anatomic

characteristics exhibited by fossils

this is the wrong one hold on

there's a specific view

that

the fossil record could be interpreted

differently about the emergence of homo

sapiens

okay here's

from punctuated equilibrium

also predicts that while intermediaries

will be rare in the evolution of single

species

they will be seen among larger groups

remember what of stropolithicus

is the precursor to modern humans there

are no fossils showing a gradual change

in grain cranial capacity or body size

of the austrothalipicus so this is what

we're looking for however this is the

one before habilis i know however there

are other species such as abilities and

erectus that show a transition

from

uh australothelibicus to okay so the

idea is that

intermediaries would be rare in the

evolution of a single species

so this is predicted by punctuated

equilibrium already

so the basic idea here

is that

the bridge between

modern man and austropolithicus

is already between is through other

species habilis and erectus

but within austropolithicus we see no

gradual changes

because we don't have a lot of them

they're so that's such and this also

calls into question whether we can

observe gradual changes um

in a rectus the one you linked is a very

shoddy source there was no citations it

was like a 1997 schizophrenic website

so i sent you the abilis one

gradual changes within habilis

okay yeah yeah cranial size change that

kind of thing within abilis sure where

can i find that

i i put it in the fact check it's the

latest one yeah yeah where in the

article

um see

you gotta go past the

say so the [ __ ] you should go into the

fossil

what

there's a section of the article called

the

you can even click on it

called the the fossil evidence okay yeah

and what's what am i looking for

specifically

so right here it'll talk to you about

like the different jaw size

discovery of homo habilis fossils

and there's only a few here apparently

so this is a low sample size keep that

in mind

yeah when we're talking about things

that are millions of years old

okay and where do we see the evolution

of the fossils

so over time we see that the different

fossils that we found

have different uh like cranial side

right the there's a gradual yeah yeah

there's a chain but is there a general

trend of like bigger or smaller is just

variance

no it gradually gets bigger over time

where do we find that

well these are the species that we've

found right

where in this article do i find that

uh like do you want the cc changes or

what

just where in the article do they talk

about over time

find you

i'm not finding anything here that's

dating the different

species

sorry the different fossils

indicating a general trend i'll have to

find something get a chart

is it not in this thing you linked

should have been well it's not

they're the different fossils are there

but there are there no one's denying

different fossils are found but it's

different

the different fossils exhibit a general

trend of change

over time

while you look for yours i'm going to

continue looking for mine yeah go for it

okay here here's actually um it's on

google books it's hard to find

okay let's look at this here

a graduated transition from homo erectus

to homo sapiens is one interpretation of

the fossil record

but the evidence can also be read

differently many researchers have come

to accept what can be termed punctuated

view of human evolution

this view suggests that species such as

homo erectus may have exhibited little

or no morphological change over large

periods of time

evolutionary stasis and that the

transition from one species to a

descendant form may have occurred

relatively rapidly and in a restricted

geographic area

rather than on a worldwide basis

whether any homo species including our

own evolved gradually or rapidly

hasn't been settled

okay

um

so no you don't you haven't given me any

[ __ ] evidence your original one about

homo erectus

probably [ __ ]

gradual [ __ ] right i just there's no

right where's the gradualism you haven't

given me anything give me one thing

i just pulled up another okay we'll look

at the other one

okay this is

this is the smithsonian natural history

okay let's look at it

and there's a chart in here that you can

look at

that goes over the millions of years and

the brain size

also

can you tell me what i'm looking at

right now because

first there's a picture of homo erectus

and homo sapiens

i need gradualism within one species

yeah so just go down go to the chart

that's there there's why the sudden

increasing brain size and you can see it

over time right

there are no distinct i what am i

looking at

within what species gravity changes

climate and changes in brain volume

um climate punctuation and brain are

these punctuated by different species

so these so every dot is a different uh

like a different specimen that we've

found

so they're different species

there are two different species there

yeah

so it's the it's the habilis and erect

uh and i think there might be

okay

you need to understand congratulations

researchers are saying and arguing is

that homo erectus experienced throughout

the entire duration of its existence as

a species evolutionary stasis

that homo sapien did homo erectus did

evolutionary stasis where it did not

exhibit morphological changes

over time

and that the changes were punctuated

okay

so this does not tell me i don't know

what i'm looking at

well the human brain size evolved

rapidly um what human species is this

referring to

because these what species is this um

talking about

so from the picture here it's pretty

clear to me that they're referring to

different species not gradual changes

within one species

so the starting point like would have

been

abilis and then erectus and then at the

end you

you can see that it's gradual where

where does it say that

this is what the article's about right

you can link just where where in the

article does it say that i don't see

okay i'm going to type hybilis in this

article habilis

there's no hibilis in this article

you're talking out of your [ __ ] ass

aren't you

you're talking out of your ass that's

all you're doing is talking out of your

ass this article does not describe

gradual changes within one species

it describes changes in brain case

volume

across species and here

there's you know it comes to a point

where over time there's there's enough

variance where there's no general trend

of an increase or decreased

no because they're different species

holy [ __ ]

they're different species so it's not

gradual

listen i'm gonna explain to you the

logic behind this there is one source

you gave me which actually would

um potentially

um

confirm your theory and it's this one

the problem with this one is that it

doesn't have any sources and it's from a

1995 schizophrenic website

i don't i can't could i don't know what

scientists think about this or what the

consensus is on this or what i should

[ __ ] make of this but this would be

about the only piece of evidence you've

provided me that would support the view

of morphological changes gradually

happening over time within one species

that lead to the speciation of homo

sapiens

okay

and and there there'd also be holes in

that because even if the claims of that

article were true that brain sizes were

increasing or decreasing

that actually doesn't indicate

whether that

exhibits

the

traits of speciation into homo sapiens

so the process of speciation is still

mysterious how human beings exactly came

to

come from homo erectus there's no gray

area as you claim there's a very hard

black and white area

there are no intermediate it's not like

time in history when that change

happened

yeah but we don't on the fossil record

it's not a gray area we can very

distinctly say this is modern human this

is homo erectus we can't that's why

there's a debate about it yes we can we

can know that there's a debate about it

there's not a debate about because of

that because

it's clearly a very distinct

it's not like you find fossils that say

oh this is a this is a half homo erectus

maybe modern human we don't find that

so it's a little bit more yeah there's

cross breeding but i'm trying to say

is that there's still distinct

populations you don't find on the fossil

record people saying oh this is uh

homo erectus and it's lighter stages

slowly changing into modern man you

don't find that

the the brain size the brain size

increase would be one potential trait

that um

morphs into modern man but it does is

that accompanied by all the other traits

that distinguish modern man from homo

erectus we don't know we don't have

enough anything from that source you

gave us

so all these traits can be tracked

but you're not tracking them for me

you're not giving me anything

that indicates any trouble you want me

to show you my dick

so you do you take the l on this debate

i'm going to show you my dick

you

gave me one you provided me with a

whopping total of one source throughout

this whole [ __ ] thing sure

yeah you can think that

which which which actually did

resolve to give me what i was asking for

yeah except this was a dog [ __ ] source

is the problem this is a dog [ __ ] source

and even if we accepted this source

it does not prove

what you were supposed to prove

yeah so that's your claim that's fine

can you argue with me about it

so

there's also there's other there's other

things within homo erectus that changed

over time right this is what i'm saying

brain size isn't the only other gravity

what are the other things that gradually

change over time and can you give me a

source

uh yeah here i'll find you a source i

think

there's something about dental

development

um

the way that our teeth

started forming differently okay homo

erectus's teeth started forming give me

the evidence

yeah

so

humans differ from other primates

[Music]

to pay well i'll find you something

okay

still waiting

yeah i'm just making sure i get you

trying to find this other one was like

uh

can you hurry it up

it's it sounds like if this is a lot

harder to find if if you were around

i already found multiple sources they're

just blind because it's like

university

okay i'll find no i'll link you the

first one i thought

it looked really

okay um

check

it's the right one did i send you the

right link once i

the

brain that's still good but

this is about

no this is about fetal [ __ ] brain

development from a child to adulthood

it has nothing to do with morphological

changes over time the time scale is a

[ __ ] uh

a child to an adult are you stupid are

you [ __ ] dumb

so it's the the development right from

the from becoming i'm a child to an

adult that's not a [ __ ] morphological

change

within a species over time that's a

child growing into an adult i don't know

so they're saying that within the same

species over time the time that it took

for it to become an adult change

okay where

so over time within there's an abstract

here and it's behind a pay wall can you

explain where it makes this claim okay

humans differ from other primates and

they're significantly lengthened growth

period the persistence of a fetal

pattern of brain growth after birth is

another important feature of human

development he represents the result of

a 1.8 million year old

child

the only well-preserved skull of a homo

erectus infant by computed

tomography firstly

it couldn't possibly do what you're

saying because there is actually only

one

one fossil record

of the preserved skull of a homo erectus

infant if it was doing what you

purported it would it would find the

skull of another homo erectus infant at

another period of time and and claim

this is an example of

morphological change within the species

comparison with a large series of extent

humans and chimpanzees indicates that

this individual is about one years

and has the endro endocranial capacity

of 72 bit to 84 of an average adult homo

erectus

so it doesn't prove what you've you you

just wasted my time again so i'm gonna

do something for you chance

give me one more source your last chance

to redeem yourself

to prove what you set out to

just one

this is your last chance the last chance

i'm giving you before you're done i've

already provided you multiple sources so

you can see the debate you have nothing

no i

i claim victory above

okay who who's going to decide who wins

and who lost

yeah exactly

chat right

it's not your chat why not

i'm not going to listen to what your

chat has so what will

but you can't even consistently maintain

a train of thought

without conceding to me

you have no line of argumentation i

haven't shattered you have nothing i can

[ __ ] destroyed you

you have nothing

really you've shown me do it i don't

have to show you [ __ ] you're the one

who's trying to prove to me gradualism

[Music]

when the consensus is that the change

was punctuated

that's not the consensus really

yeah that's just one theory okay but

it's it's it's the because okay but the

truth is is that homo erectus was

characterized by a period of

evolutionary stasis

that's one theory no it's not it was

no

okay what are the counter what's forms

of evidence to the contrary

the fact that there were gradual changes

in the species of time or millions

who've been proven by what

proven by the fact that they're crazy

give me one source the crane the source

you gave me that's talking about cranial

capacity is not proven it's not sourced

it's a source that's not sourced

you gave me one yes but that is from a

schizo schizophrenic 1995 website that

can't be [ __ ] sourced anywhere and

i've never seen that claim reproduced

anywhere else

so you lost right

i'm linking it now

okay this is your final this is the last

chance this is the last chance i'm

giving you

okay well this this is about the same

thing that i i linked to you the sort of

thing you don't like

the the information you liked but the

source

so this should this is from nature this

should be

okay we'll check it out

okay so this is a new set of fossils

began

uh two million years ago a new set of

fossils began to appear in the human

fossil record homo erectus they show

evidence of increases in both body size

and brain size

okay

we'll check it out

um

okay so this is the source from nature

so these are the fossils and these are

how they're dated

they're found all over here

um

increases in body size one of the traits

commonly associated homoerectus is an

increase in body size

so they're talking about homo erectus

relative to the species that came before

it not within home or right now it's

over time there's an increase in body

size where

well because this is over the period of

time that homo er

yeah where does it say that okay

increase

in hominins increases

like if you look at this table here it's

key homo rectus

yeah i know but look at the table

um where do they talk about an increase

in size

at all they don't the table doesn't

describe an increase in size i'm looking

for here um

the smallest bodied early homorectus

fossils have a brain size only slightly

larger than earlier hominins

early large bodies so there's a variance

of large bodied and small spotted um in

the earlier so there's variance there's

it's there's no [ __ ] general trend of

change

no but you can you can look at averages

right like i mean where do you find

averages here though you said this is

the source that backs it up so where

like look at the fact that homo sapiens

are now

taller on average than dumbass dumbass

you said you gave me a source that

describes gradualism of brain sizes

or homo erectus that backs up that backs

up that it doesn't back up anything it's

talking about relative to the species

before

you can scroll down to increased brain

size

sure

there's that's not nowhere to be found

okay right here that's what i'm already

looking at though

i already looked at increased brainstorm

i'm literally on it right now

okay wait maybe this might back you up

through the history of ev throughout the

evolutionaries of homo erectus there is

substantial evidence for selection

leading towards increased

um this means brain size so that while

early members of the lineage had a

racial capacity of six okay this is what

would have helped you 600 800 the

cranial capacities of the most later

specimens are well in excess of 1 000

which is within the lower range of

contemporary humans

without appearing considerably larger in

body size than earlier homo erectus okay

so this would back up what you said

originally

um the original source okay so that does

source it that does source the original

sources claim

that earlier

in its evolutionary history homo erectus

had a cranial capacity of 600 800 and

later specimens are to be found with 1

000.

the problem is

is that

the sample sizes are too small to

describe a general trend

second of all

we don't know what the relationship

between the increased cranial capacities

of homo erectus and speciation into homo

sapiens is is this part of the

speciation into homo sapiens we don't

know

well behavioral things were one of the

main

couldn't

because like we we could cross breed

right there was reading but we had

listen listen behaviorally it can be

speculated that the transition from homo

erectus to modern human

but what we do know is that on the

fossil record

it's an abrupt change from homo erectus

to modern man

but there are gradual changes right

there are gradual changes

but the dna listen there's graduals

there are gradual changes

listen there's one there's a gradual

change that appears

which was confirmed by this of a cranial

increase right

right but

there is no evidence

that that cranial increase

is an indication of speciation into homo

sapiens

so what was one of the things that

created the speciation if you remember

when you were like we all we don't know

all we know

we don't know all we know

is that the change was abrupt of course

you remember also you do remember that

there was a an abrupt correlation with

the cooked food right you you read that

that was a study that you pulled up um

i heard it somewhere i can't back it up

right so that's that's

generally thought to be true that you

know our brains started growing with

cooked foods right yeah but the problem

is

technological okay sure but the problem

is speciation which is modern man is an

abrupt change from homoerectus not a

gradual one

but now it's true that it's true that we

do have bigger brain sizes compared to

the original homo erectus smaller post

canine but that's one trait

okay reduced

post canine let's see the change of

ecology homo erectus corresponding to

change a definition of jaws of this

species

again is it talking about

the evolutionary history of homo erectus

or homo erectus compared to before

so to talk about

it's not it's actually not talking about

the evolutionary history of homo erectus

here or here

it's only talking about that here

so homo erectus engaged in a diverse and

broad diet the food and organisms ingest

yes it doesn't say in the earlier parts

of homo erectus's existence it ate this

and then later part it ate this it's not

saying that it doesn't say that

right so it's not it's not it's it's not

non-relevant evident it's not relevant

yeah okay that's fine

so you've given me nothing

well i've given you the increased brain

size which left yeah

right yeah yeah no no wait wait wait

hold on the increase

the problem is and this is kind of weird

now i stand to be corrected if i'm wrong

but it does not appear to me that within

the evolutionary history of homo erectus

there's an increased technological

level

it appears there's a kind of stasis

there and if that's true

that kind of incriminates the evidence

of increased cranial capacities

as not indicating a a greater trend over

the millions of years like they're

technologically

i don't think that's i don't know if

that's true there it doesn't say that in

this

hold on while the earliest home or maybe

it does while the earliest homo erectus

specimens are found in association with

very basic stone tools

um

by five 1.5 million years ago

populations of homo erectus were

creating a more complex and

typologically codified set of tools okay

okay yeah i'll um grant that

okay so that does that does uh

indicate that

yeah

there's some

what is this guy saying on twitter

okay

let me be clear though is that

um hold on

okay

let me be clear though that this doesn't

tell us about what led to speciation and

furthermore i'll tell you why it's

difficult with humans in general right

because this is a historical process of

increased technological whatever you

don't see that with any other species

except man you don't see like

for example the past hundred years of

humans we've changed technologically

you don't see that with any other man so

man

is defined by creating its own

environment through labor right

so

at what point hominids began to endanger

their own evolution and change is an

open question

well we have signs that even apes

do that

yeah but apes do it in a period of

stasis there's no like increase over

time we can observe of ape

tools being

more complex than before within the same

species comparable to homo erectus

uh no i would grant you that yeah

so here it's not really um

it's still again this problem is still

the problem is still the fact

that the process of speciation

is abrupt

it's a complex one right it could have

had to do with multiple

uh well we just know the process of

speciation was abrupt

furthermore i wonder how many of these

changes with homo erectus were

punctuated by

um

ecological changes and

geological changes i mean it's like how

neanderthals are sort of different right

they have different brow ridge they have

a larger jaw um they have a smaller

cranial capacity

um

you know they're

seen as less evolved than homo sapiens

and that's kind of why we wiped them out

but

we that's that's the theory that's not

supported

well there are no neanderthals around

other than the fact that i'm ready that

doesn't that doesn't justify jumping to

[ __ ] these grand speculations about

why it happened you don't you don't know

why that species out compete each other

that's generally well that's just the

[ __ ] ideological narrative you're

pulling on your [ __ ] ass

we don't know why neanderthals are no

longer here you can you can you can you

can assume what you think is the most

likely conclusion based on what you find

to fix your ideology but that truth is

that we don't know

what do you think is the limiting factor

food is generally the large living fact

i i think i think um

it may very well be possible that

neanderthals never did go extinct

well i've i think that

what we know about archaic humans and

their relationship to modern humans is

very difficult

it's very possible that neanderthals

intermixed with us to such an extent

that as a distinct group they cease to

exist

um

it's also possible that they were

geographically united somehow in that

geographic or geological events they

were um mostly northern european

and then denisovans were more asian yeah

yeah well we don't know you can't you

can't jump to these speculatives

theories they're not scientific these

are not these are what we do out in the

fossils right so this is what we

consider okay but you're speculating

about theories about how we out-competed

them or some [ __ ] and this is just uh

completely unscientific speculation

science about how species get rid of

each other

no that's not how it works species don't

get rid of each other well they out

compete each other for food and

reproductively they don't no they don't

yep competition is mostly interest uh

interest specific

inter-species competition is basically

like non-existent

you think species don't compete for food

like no because because because for

multiple species to exist in the same

place

unless there's some kind of fluke like

you just threw a tiger in a cage

with like a monkey that never shared an

ecology before yeah they'll compete and

one will die or whatever

but when it comes to nature

by the time species have shared the same

ecology they have coexisted for a very

long time which means

they're not actually really competing

with each other to to out breed each

other or to destroy one another now when

it comes to within species you are going

to see an intense level of competition

because it's not actually um decided yet

like who's going to survive within the

species

it's not known right or it's not

established

that has to do with reproductive

capability right like if species don't

out breed each other

members of species outbreed each other

but as a

for example you don't know what you're

talking it's so [ __ ] stupid

we can out compete them for reproductive

that's not how it works

that is how it works no it's not

well that's

that i mean you can say that all you

want but

that's a [ __ ] stupid [ __ ] middle

school view of [ __ ] uh

biology that's [ __ ] stupid

i mean yeah you can say that but i mean

doesn't

lasting

that's [ __ ] darwinian cope dumbass

[ __ ]

everything is competing with each other

no that's not really how it works

that is kind of how it works no it's not

no it's not different species don't

really compete with each other survival

of the fittest my friend

yeah the thing is is that survival of

the fittest is literally a [ __ ] form

of circular reasoning

how's that

because you're literally saying

survival to the it's aristotle in

metaphysics the survival to the one who

can survive the most

it's just [ __ ] aristotley in

metaphysics it's all it [ __ ] is

do you know what fittest means

it literally it what survival the

fittest means is survival of the that

being that can survive the bestest

yes that's a [ __ ] tautology

fittest means

reproductive fitness which is about

survival yes

so your capacity to reproduce

that's what survived that's how survival

is defined and that's what survival is

defined as you [ __ ] dumb ass and

that's why um neanderthals didn't

survive

because they couldn't breathe better

than we could we bet we no again that's

that's a thought that has no causal

value whatsoever in explaining why

neanderthals aren't to be found anymore

because if a [ __ ] meteor came and

wiped out all neanderthals for whatever

reason

yes they can't breed anymores but is

their inability to breed a causal reason

for them no longer existing or do they

no longer exist because the meteor

[ __ ] wiped them out you would say the

latter not the former the former implies

the former implies there was something

wrong with the neanderthal dick

well that he wasn't as good at what we

needed to to do in that environment

right so

he had a smaller cranial capacity you're

saying we outbred them because we fought

for that with resources for them or some

[ __ ] it's [ __ ] not true

so we were more successful and then we

got more chances to breed

no

that's exactly how no it's successful

that's completely [ __ ] [ __ ]

more successful how because the meteor

didn't because a meteor didn't happen to

strike us that's a stupid [ __ ] way of

looking at it we were better at

no we weren't but we weren't necessarily

better than anything there's room for

contingency and randomness in this

process doesn't [ __ ] mean we're

better at anything

what you're saying is stupid if you're

on a raft and there's two people on a

raft and a shark just happens to eat the

other raft and you're the one remaining

it doesn't mean you're better at

anything

that's why you have a very unscientific

view of how this works

and i know how to make a fishing rod and

you're trying to grab yeah but you have

to prove that's the reason you survived

sometimes a shark just comes and kills

the other guy doesn't mean you're better

it just means you're

lucky it just means you're lucky it

doesn't mean you're better there was no

mass extinction event with neanderthals

we don't know what led to the end of

neanderthals they had a larger cranial

capacity than us there's no reason to

think we were better than them in any

like they could they couldn't have a

large like their brain was

what

they had a larger skull but their brain

was

no

actually brain size

there's a certain level where brain size

doesn't even [ __ ] matter because it's

based on insulation of cold and not

based on like

anything relating to is so-called

intelligence so

matter right yeah brain size matters at

a larger scale but at a smaller scale it

gets to a point where it doesn't matter

like the small differences

the small differences of brain size

within a species

or subspecies tend not to matter when

it's based on the insulation of cold

yeah within a within two humans right

like

the one who has a big brain is necessary

unless it's by like a massive degree

yeah there it speculated that the

reasons for neanderthals becoming um

extinct was environmental we still don't

know what happened to neanderthals they

could have just

mixed with us to such an extent that

they no longer were distinct

there's also um like factors about

you know their ability to get resources

that's again again again i'm sick of

your [ __ ] minecraft view of history

right like they were adapted to

different climates and eventually the

climate change so that we were more

like that yeah but that's extremely

improbable because both humans and

neanderthals were stone

were

people that

migrated and moved around a lot

the distinction you're taught you're

playing with the distinction between man

and animal here which is very difficult

they're all the same

man is an animal

that's not true

man is not he's not a [ __ ] animal

man is nothing but an animal man is not

a [ __ ] animal

yes they are can you give me a list of

animals that say they are animals

what's that give me a list of animals

that

express

i don't know i don't idea that they are

animals

do you speak a lot of other animal

language

when has an animal ever expressed any

consort

when is an okay give me can you give me

proof of an animal being able to make

the concept of animal

intelligence in any kind of way shut the

[ __ ] up is there any type of behavior

exhibited by an animal that expresses an

animal's ability to make the concept of

animality intelligible

what do you mean by the concept of

animality the general concept of an

animal can any animal make that

intelligible

because a dog for example is going to

bark and go crazy over a [ __ ] toy

dinosaur i've seen it my [ __ ] with my

[ __ ] bear i've seen with my own

[ __ ] two eyes

so it they can't even really distinguish

an animal

even even

sensibly from a [ __ ]

animate object oftentimes

i mean give it enough time it'll be able

to tell if it's alive or

not no

i i've seen it with my own eyes i've

given it plenty of time too

you think dogs can't tell what's alive

dogs even if they could based on like

hearing their heart beat and [ __ ] they

still have no concept of what an animal

is

well i mean they would understand it

differently than we they wouldn't

they wouldn't understand it at all

because understanding is a mental

process by the intellect

that has to do with conceptual reasoning

you don't know what's going on inside an

animal you don't you don't but there's

no reason to think they they they could

have

that that ability there's no reason to

think that any

do you know what's going on inside of a

rock

do i know what's going on inside of your

head

do you know what's going inside of a

rock

no i don't

well iraq is thinking you just don't

know it

that could be true

okay anything else

like that could be true you don't have

evidence against that it's it's not look

at this [ __ ] sofa street look at this

total [ __ ] sofa street do you have

anything else

why would we ever entertain the idea of

a rock having mental

thoughts all we know is that the only

beings we know of who can even say we

are an animal are humans which is no

other animal can do so that i think that

alone gives rise to a distinction

between man and animal anything else

i don't think so we're just animals okay

that's your cope anything else

humans are nothing but animals okay what

animals have history what animals have

history do any animals have history

all animals have history sure what's the

history of dogs are sorry dogs are

related to humans they don't have

history what's what's the history of um

a tortoise

um

you know what history is by the way

history history is a process of

political change economic change

yeah how does that happen with tortoises

i don't know about the history is there

like a tortoise roman empire

there might be

do you think that it would be um

reasonable to like even entertain the

idea of tortoises having a an equivalent

to the roman empire

or to a religion or anything like that

uh i don't know bees dance to

communicate with each other that's great

do bees have history or do bees do the

same [ __ ] they've always [ __ ] done

because they're bees i know what you

mean by history bees are no bees are

definitely different

they do the same [ __ ] they've always

done based on their the constitution of

their organism

no okay how are they different across

time how are bees exhibiting historical

changes

what at one at one point b's didn't

exist

there's a time in history when bees

didn't exist that's not and now we ask

their history

no it's not because they didn't exist

they only have history when they start

to exist so where's their history

since that's their history

where are the roman empires where are

the be

jesus christ is there a be jesus christ

i don't know maybe maybe so what history

do have bees always done the same thing

that bees have always done for as long

as bees have existed

i don't uh it depends depends on what

you mean

different species of bees do different

things

is that what i'm asking

well so i would assume that over time in

the fossil record these have changed

i'm asking you if bees have history do

they have history or do they do the same

[ __ ]

change over time that's history

no it's not

because

bees are completely determined

by their organism and by their

environment

so are humans

no they're not because

in any given five thousand [ __ ] years

we can have recorded

there are profound differences in our

behavior in our culture

in our history

in our politics in our structure the

society structure of our society and we

don't change physiologically you ever

have a pet

you're not only getting disconnected

you're getting banned from my server get

the [ __ ] out of here you took the

biggest you took the biggest [ __ ] owl

of your life get the [ __ ] out of my face

a great personality

i've never talked to anyone more stupid

than that in my [ __ ] life okay we're