DEBATE KHAN (YEAR OF THE TIGER) [2022-02-02]

memember those fireworks at lake michigan that's my home understand that's my home i was born of the great lakes the michigan air the michigan breeze michigan is where i belong michigan is where i have loyalty to that's where i belong geographically is michigan i got no loyalty to california i don't understand this place and austins we a bunch

usseas for austin michigan is the heartland of america and michigan is the heartland

maybe we pue my heart

i am not starting to talk until we're at least minimum three hundred

we're coming home again and you say shat city shat city shat city coming home again thinkin

met this girl when i was three years old and what i most s had so much so she said excuse me little on me i know you don't know me but my name is wndy yh i like to plow tree s and from that point i never blow makeus come from out of town i like to so we they like to ak she like to tellm and make a straighten up their had because she know they stop and when i grew up she show me ad to go downtown and the night

tim my face lit up so it down and i told am my heart is what she always be s never iss with entertainers because they always leave he said it felt like they walked in drove on me w i was gang a gate get on t v and told on me i guess is why last when a she guest so cold on me she said y keep making them keep making them plan thet me go for me

maybe we could start again but if you really care for then you wouldn't never hit the airport to follow your dream sometimes i still talk to what but when i talk to what it

seems like she talking about me she said you let the keys and they just like you they want to wrap it make so be just like you but they just net you and i just get to talk about when theus trying to do just net new that everybody get the game figere out w i guess you never know what you get to list go i guess this why i'm he and i can't come back home gjest when i heard dead when i was back home every in if

you want repres and you making you cray a creek for the start when you call you maan on the clawn jumping the crawb talking light is way from the ground i f you'll knowbout now talking about shot

think the sheeper now i'm coming home againye i a think the sheeper now i'm coming home again maybe we could start again

do't okay do okay

maybe we could start again

now it's y have father you know what's

a guys doar thank you so much orvll appreciate you

thank you so much listen thank hear you're returning to thep sate you brother i got to tell you guys an update ok today i was supposed to be out of here right but i called my dad

and he's like the weather is so fucked up there's sixteen inches of snow in michigan apparently and it's going to be delayed if you get a ticket so he told me to wait till friday but i'm probly i'm in a rush kind of so i'm a thing i'm going to just leave tomorrow i don't know but i have

have this place till tomorrow at eleven so that's good but i'm going to be out here soon as i can getting the fuck out as soon as i can i'm going to rust to get out of here you know you got ten it nineteen inches it yeah that's what i heards like a big fuck and storm out there but i'm kind of trapped in you know i mean and it's fucked up i was

to leave today but apparently not but you know i was kind of sad about leaving a few days ago i was a i dont want to leave now i really just want to get the buk out of here to be honest i'm going home going back home to michigan you know and it's not that it's because i hate l a i hate l a way more in december

and you know i've had fun shit like last night oh let me tell you what happened last night o and let me tell you what it shout the fuck up l a changed you shut the fuck up first of all let me just play some shit it's not going to get muted

thk you syncetic more let me tell you guys i

so l a

ah last night

um so i was supposed to do an i l last night with somebody and uh i met up with them

and it was supposed to be at seven that we did it but

we ended up running out of time because ah we were mainly just chillin

you know and time flew you know so that's why i was unable to do the ir yesterday which sucks you know it sucks a lot

but whatever you know i'm making up for with this

i'm making up for it with this dream i mean yeah is what it is

i wanted to get more collapse and shit but yeah

yeah i'm going to cover the whole lysenko shit the jan shit

and yea we're going to be going through that whole thing in today's dream thank you red patriot so powerful eaglepreciate you man thank you

appreciate you man thanks

because i'm going to debunk these mendeloids because these mendeloids have gotten a little too cocky and they in need of a big debunking so we're going to go ahead and go through with that and you know is what it is

leaveing my trees

guys is it is it strange that this is the song i think of for world war three this is my world war three song when i'm listening to this thank you a the bandit i'm thinking of world war three thisifically this part where she does this

it's so much better every every single male song is sung better by females because i'm swens eighties udes are seeing these songs and they have these high pitched voices but i thin thiss that doesn't sound good you know i mean this is so much more graceful you know so much more graceful and i'm sick of these dudes thing in these songs but i want to listen to a dude sing

me a song weirl i don't want to listen to that i don't want to listen to a grown man telling me

you're myhr you're my soul

feeling all right down

hhuh

ok the candles forttin minemin

liveing my dream

you must so

h you must so that's the you mah you must so

guys just so it's clear it's not a mean it's not a joke liicen was one thousand percent correct ok

trofen lysenko was one thousand per cent correct there's no such thing as genes genes are not real there's no such thing

completely fake fabricated made up synthtic

stop yelling in the mfe

no you guys know i get d ms on instagram of girls

well it's only been like two

or three and they're like

they're like yell let me daddy i love when you yell in the mike

and i'm like what the hell

but if you think about it it is kind of sexual honestly it is kind of like that it is kind of like this you know everyone here is basically

you know i mean think about it i'm not turning should din n i'm saying i'm out here my not saying and you understand so you all better leave this i'm just gketting i'm ski i'm just kidding i'm just kidding i'm just gkidding i'm just gketting listen listen listen listen i will never change my mike because every time you know i feel

don't like listening to people i don't like listening to people and every time they tell me oh ohse lo your mike fix your mike i don't trust that i don't trust that why do you want me to fix my fucking mike i fel you know i don't want to i don't want to listen to you you know i feel like i have a strong hour going on right now and i don't want to fuck in listen to all these people saying oh i

times n know why should i wath what could be like the other streamers no i'm a keep it how it is i'm a keep it how it is you understand you've got to understand that in the infrared show it runs differently here we run shit differently you know this is not going to be another twitch streamchit always high intensity always high energy always talking whatever you know

maybe we

and all i can think about is remembering the fireworks in lake michigan because you don't have a so if you don't know what i'm talking about what book got banned i don't even know what books are getting banned buto i've been in fucking l but my

fucking ears are ringing because last night i didn't ditch the stream for this because that was way later but later in the night when i went to a fucking club with jackson and some other people and we were next we were right next to the fucking speaker so my ears are still ringing like i was in a war you know we're

was right next to the fucking speaker and it was a fun time biooks in lake michigan what a wholesoe moment what a wholes moment when they say fireworks in lake michiganu interview with newsmx no we're going to cover the licenco genetics thing with swamp

communist the biggest dumbfuck on twitter swamp communist is genuinely a stupid person you need to understand this is a stupid illiterate person yes i am fucking going to address it in like two seconds i just think i deserve four hundred viewers before i get into it you know that's just kind of where i'm coming from when i just be like we should need more people here because i don't want people to say oh

yes i god fekon cover wret here so get your us in here and then i'll cover it ok we're going to build up until then

fireworks in lake michigan

yeah i like this song but it's not appropriate it's not appropriate to the occasion

you guys listen when i listen to this music of like a woman singing about her love life or some shit do you think i'm thinking about

love do you think i'm thinking about relationships what do you think goes through my head when i listen to the song thank you brutle what do you think goes through my head when i listen to the song gues

no i don't think about fucking sex through music how fucking cringes that i think about an ironically i don't endorse them but i'm allowed to think about them right not dorsing anything because they're a terrorist organization according to the but i

think about hezbollah when i listen to the song i'm not joking about that either i'm literally not joking about that i'm not joking about that

stay fytess together

s as now never now never

taste your lives forever

stay lightters together

say it's now forever now never ah i want to stay like this forever i want to stay like this together you always say it's now and never now andever ah i want to stay st this forever i want to stay like this together you always say it's now never its not forever ah

and you want to know why because i want to write a substack i can't i can't do the skitz so shit wrighte i used to do that when i knew those are world people i would write fucking substacks and writ shoud just random topics and stuff twitter and all those people i cant do that right but i really want to it inspires me to write something called angelic materialism

angelic materialism because i'm not endorsing anything it's an impersonal analysis right but when you think about hezbollah right it's the first time

you combine

religious traditionalism

and modern like advanced

materialist modern warfare thank you gerp let me explain it like this let me explainy this right

when the poleons armies were fighting austria no pliion represented the raw materialism and rationalism of bat of war right no sentiments no religion whatever just raw material war right and that's that's the modern warfare right basically it started modern warfare which it is materialists it's claspitz that guy laus

sitz right all the marxists like the clauswits but the crazy thing about hezbollah and it's not an endorsement it's just an observation is that for the first time they combined religious traditionalism with the effectiveness of modern combat and that's fucking insane like

they are materialist in the sense that they are operating they're submitting to the laws of warfare while also submitting to the laws of god and to me that is a form of angelic materialism

do there b

like the dichotomy between spiritual and material is overcome

and i call that angelic materialism

ay this now forever no forever ah i want to say like this forever i want to say like this together it will always say meself forever slf ever ah i want to tay so s forever i want to say like this forgether you will always say itow for never n for never ah

like like it's it's not just based on a lost cause it's a hyper modern army pst modern army and that's what's falking fascinating to me about islamic revolution and revival it's not just a return to before it's post modern that's what's so fucking interesting to me

it's not pre modern it's post modern

damn

honestly the biggest source of influence in my life personally politically ideologically whatever the fuck you want is theeus nine hundred and seventy nine iranian revolution

that's right i beat with leftist leftist are like why is ees beeping with me is he a nazi is it dogin no because you call yourself a maoist and as much as i'm a maoist i consider the nine hundred seventy nine iranian revolution to be a step above that so that's where i am i'm at the iranian revolution

in history you're still stuck in the cultural revolution i'm at the iranian revolution all my interest in hidegre and all that shit comes from that like cas are you a nosb i'm not a crypo nosb i'm a crypto islamist please get it right i'm not a crypto nosb i am a crypto islamist i'm yeah yeah i'm a

th islamist i'm not a girly an islamist but like i flirt with it that's like my aroma that's my aroma and that's my like atmosphere right

yes ely revolution that's what i am angelic materialism holy revolution new objectivit it's a my coin iranian revolution ida garyan revolution yes i'm a modern islamist you know i'm not an islamist because that has a bad connotation that word but but but

i can't fix i'm a modern muslim that's what i say i'm a modern muslim and i use sufi spiritual warfare tactics i use to i employ fucking mysticism and combine it with modern materialism and people like cause how can you be a traditional religious guy when you know you're out here chasing pussy and drinking and shit

i don't drink that often anyway and all i got to say to that is that i walk with demons i walk with demons i shield myself from them that i do not believe in shutting myself off from the world i don't believe in that i don't believe shutting myself off from the world yes traditional modernity that's what i am additional modernity

it's like so his you basically have like a bunch of backward views about women and sex and shit and yes but but i don't think you should make it direct like for example

i do harbor many traditional islamic views about women but i don't think it should be directly realized in real i think we should just harbor them internally and just keep them in mind you know like like i don't believe in laws i don't believe in laws where women have to cover up and shit you know and i don't believe in laws that regulate what happens in the bedroom

but we can still be mindful of realities in our heart you know by what are you guys doing i might be able to come to what are you guys doing me jackson got some shit pland the night

no clue you we tekes me teks me what's going on and what will will s will sort it out o before i get into the licen sh thank you you thank you you so much appreciate you before i get into the license

h ok before i go ahead and get into that i just want to say con spirit being a conspiracy theorist is how you rediscover religion if you're not a conspiracy theorist you will never understand religion thank you so much invalid

appreciate you so much thank you leisure enthusiasm the he's asking what is the main difference been sunny and shia i've researched it in islamic history ok

i am a shia in my heart that's just my orientation i'm a shia right that's just like my gravitation but i also know when shias are wrong and when sundays are right and i give credit like it's not it's not when i say i'm a shia i don't mean sundnays are wrong sundays are right in their own way it's just that i'm a shia in my

practice i'm practically a shiah right but i don't believe in the division at all we should have many different practices sunnys can have a practice then there's different branches of sundy that have their own practice actually she has the fifth branch of sundy islam actually we have different schools and there's different practices sis have their own practices we just have our own ways of doing it it's not that one is wrong and the other is

right that's how you have to think about it but the reason i'm a shia is because i genuinely believe in shia angelic materialism and i'm open to dialogue with sunni philosophers who are up my alley but i don't get along with sh theologians and shit because i'm so unorthodox in my approach i don't like talking about religion because people misunderstand me i'm an american

pragmatist which means i think abou out the practical side of things which is kind of demonic le me put it this way guys

even if i'm an atheist when i go to sleep and i cit the fat to ho it works even if i don't believe in it rationally it works so that's how i think of religion like i don't you could say is there a god is it it doesn't matter it works something is going on it works the interaction is functional and that's all i care about

you know what i'm saying like when i say when i say allah akra it makes me feel a certain way

it does something for me i don't you can call that whatever the fuck you want but it does something you understand

when i cite the pantaha it does something for me you understand

yes when i pray it does something

yam

it does it works practically it works and letm me tell you guys something and i i haven't talked about this a lot

in my life when i've been thank you for abby appreciate youn'

any doubt

on your stream of samara

bight

we re

my

inherit

you

i don't remember doing that with samira on stream i really don't remember doing that with samira on stream to be honest

i don't remember that but i remember talking about that before but anyway what i was saying was yeah i wasn't with samira it was with someone else thank you sirve with the tppreciate you what i was what i'm trying to say is when i was in a big rt in my life like a big ok let me tell you what happened

earlier this year twenty twenty one twenty twenty one some time i got into it with a girl that i really really liked i really liked her like you know i play with women whatever but this one i actually really did like a lot and she like kind of ghosted me she did ghost me she did and for the firt

time in so long i was so i was like panicking so much does like no this is meant to be whatever i really feel is meant to be i actually like got on my knees and prayed i prayed as as much as i could like based on the fucking what i remembered and it actually did something she actually i actuly

ually got back in touch with her like she response she messages me or whatever like a few days later and then i realized i asked god for something that i shouldn't have because it made me realize that it wasn't meant to be anyway that i'm saying so it's like it's a guy asked god for

something just for him to show me why it had to happen i asked god for something just for him to show me why it had to happen and that's why i don't like praying for things anymore you know yeah i got closer exactly exactly and praying is very powerful i swear it's very powerful i can't explain to you why

it is i just know personally me it's fucking powerful it is and i'm i don't know about other religions i'm not familiar with them i then of theay guys i'm a muslim right so when when it just makes you feel its certain type a way i mean you got to if you're like an atheist go ahead and study the brain science of it i don't know

but i am telling you when you pray

when you recite these words these holy words they do things they actually do things and you can explain that however you want to fuck and explain it but that's just a fact of my experience they actually do things i'm not saying they perform miracles like peray

you get what you want but like they change your mental state they change your mental state and they change

the feeling you have

honestly that spiritual side of us is an aspect of who we are it's an aspect of our humanity objectively and if you don't tend to it i feel like

you will become very grotesque and ugly you know

of us too

you mean prayer like actual muslim prayer yes yes i do it's very very powerful and i respect people who do it five times a day a lot

i wish i had that discipline but you know why i don't pray five times a day because i'm a sinful person i walk with demons i don't want there's too much dirt on me you understand i don't want to muddy this pure holy ritual with all the dirt that's on me i prefer to go down my path of fire i prefer to go down the path of fire

listen this is my path my path

is a flame in one hand and holy water in the other hand and this is the path i walk holy water and a flame

this is my path i don't do religious rituals i don't pray i see a clear of mosques because there's too much chaotic demonic aros surrounding me you understand you want to know why guys because i and maybe

this makes me the anti christ

maybe this makes me the antichrist that's paganism no it's not maybe this makes me the antichrist

but i believe i don't have a problem with the religiously pure i respect them but i wager my faith with the fallen with the people who were failed by the religion who are condemned and a cursed and neglected and have no faith and lost their faith and don't know how to you know i mean to

people who those are the people i'm with you know so it's like if they're all going to hell i'm going to help to if all those people who gave up on religion and who have become so sinful that they feel like they cannot be redeemed i'm with them i'm with the prisoners who are condemned you know if they're condemned and i'm condemned i'm with the crim

who don't have hope you know

you believe apost should be killed of course not of course not i'm an american pragmatist you need to understand that

those all you don't understand what i'm saying at all you deliterly don't understand anything i'm saying

stay like this forever and and stay like this together

side as now forever now forever ah

take your lives forever

like i believe in the people who lost their way you know that's why i'm a conspiracy theorist because when i think about it like these people in power who act all high and mighty and holy they are no better than the slowest scum on the street they just hide it they're

no better than the lowest scum on the street you know i am not an atheist thank you one thousand percent i am not an atheist i'm not an atheist i'm not an atheist you can't say i'm an atheist i'm not i do believe in some i do believe in a god i do fucking believe in that

and marx did too by the way i do believe in that i don't believe in irth and rocks i believe this is all a miracle i believe this all means something it means something

can you fuckn comprehend that

this shit means something it means something we're not just fucking dirt and rocks there's a meaning here

right

there's a meaning to this

thank you rosswa there's a meaning to this which imperils the entire cosmos for example right and wrong when you have a feeling of right and wrong ok when you see something going on on the street and injustice going on and it's deeply wrong in your heart

it's not just wrong because subjectively i find it personally wrong it is wrong on bond of the entire universe the entire cosmos it is wrong that's why i'm not an atheist it is fundamentally wrong yes there is meaning in the real that's what i

can say there is meaning in the real which means let me tell you what it means it means the smallest act of injustice committed against a human being

which you know is wrong fundamentally wrong

that is wrong on bond of our collective extinction

it's wrong on bond of collective extinction

which means we may as well all perish that's how wrong it is that's why that's why they say in the holy book they say to kill one person is to kill all of humanity

s se

well give me a second thank you cuicks and i got

don't touch

let me just be clear about something all western science is wrong all modern knowledge is wrong all western science is wrong genetics complete fucking bullshit complete bullshit all fucking wrong there's no such thing as genes and i'm going to cover the

is u fox weweet

this stupid dumb ass and i want everyone to i'm going to make a video of this i'm going to make a video expos on this fucking stupid shit right so here we go here we go in real time but to fuck and blow the fuck out of this dumb shit you understand and darwin is very much over exaggerated darwin was wrong about a lot of shit

and he he was a british metaphysician he made some scientific discoveries but he was a british metaphysician at the end of the day ay i need this fucking shit to work i have no idea why it's not

don't flush b

oh my god

i can't falk and believe this

so i'm going to tell you something acthe

um here we go

can

and we go so i'm going to give you some background knowledge about this shit so you can understand where this shit is coming from

first of all

birst the wall is the music distracting you guys

how about we we keep it chill right

we' going to ease into it we're going to ease into it

understand

when he ease into it

like

yeah

gak

first of all

this dumass

is not saying this cause no one asked for it's cause i made a tweet because letm show you this actually so let's actually go in order how this fucking started right

so why is this guy doing this shit

because i made a tweet and i'll show you my tweet and this is basically what he says subtweeting right and it was this ok so it's this right israeli scientists have found that genetic mutations are not random in some circumstances so people are saying ha

you're over exaggerating the significance of this no i'm not i'm giving you yet another example of how evolutionary synthesis is collapsing at the seams if in one instance genetic mutations are proven not to be random then it is highly likely thatt that many other mutations that were thought to be random probably aren't you probably just don't understand the deeper mechanisms

by which these mutations

are triggered in organisms you just don't understand how it fucking happens so you say it's random there's no randomness right you can't really prove randomness all you can do is prove

that you don't understand the deeper mechanisms behind it so if these scientists are proving

that genetic mutations

are in this specific instance of the development of immunity toward malaria something like that in african populations

that that is not random

that is like a paradigm shifting implication for genetics the so called field of genetics you have to change how we think genes works there's so many discoveries like this by the way there's so many this isn't the only one i'm just saying there's a lot of copium in the thread that's like hans this is all part of you'r exaggerating it this is just all part of genetics no it's not you have to

rethink how you think this shit works we don't know how to integrate the findings of this study with the traditional way in which we think evolution happens ok according to selection based on random mutations and they've done the math by the way random fucking mutations cannot account

por the species that exist to day it's mathematically impossible and it's been fucking proven it is mathematically impossible for random mutations

two accounts

for the wealth of organisms that we have

you can't how can you fucking look at a polar bear and say as just a random mutation no it wasn't there's a deeper

reality to the way in which

microbiology

interfaces and interacts with the organism and its environment k

that you just don't understand

but there was a guy

who seemed to come across a great deal many discoveries

about how that does work

which seems to coincidentally confirm all these new breakthrough studies

these

genetic scientists are making about genetics like

oh really

so you're saying mutations are not random like oh really you're saying that

genetics don't determine phenotypes

you're saying that genes cannot account for phenotypes oh you're saying that

jeans do not actually u

code for information in the way you thought before

and that the wld cell works in a fucking um

harmonious way that can alter like oh you're saying all the things that basically confirm what ly sanco already said i'm going to tell you guys the goddamn truth

the whole story

about

lysencle is based on hearsay so we don't actually know for certain all we can do is trust and infer based on the credibility of what people are saying like i'll give you an example o i'll give you an actual example of this so why would lysen so this is the allegations against lysencle he faked his data

he caused crop failures and he did all this kind of shit right and it was a complete he never proved anything

okay

what are the motivations for saying that though and wheres the source we don't have any primary sources confirming this so this is just about trust why should we trust the people who are saying this when they had an entrenched interest in denying licenles discovery i'll tell you why because liceno upset the entire scientific establishment which was based in fucking britain b

in was the center of biology throughout the world because of darwin ok lyicent upset that so the russian scientific establishment got fucking but heurt that this barefoot peasant and that's what they called them the barefoot scientists

was actually

producing practical results that's completely shattered the entire basis of their modern scientific worldview so i could see why they could have a reason for rejecting icencle that is not just based on the scientific method ok meanwhile it seems like it's a stretch to me it's just not very probable that after years and years and years

the soviet establishment

propped up lyicenco despite crop failures

listen

i'll give you an example of why that is improbable to me

because einstein in physics sorry m

nls bor's physics were rejected by the russian ideological side the soviet ideological establishment who favored einstein and yet that did not stop them from using the discoveries of modern physics to build the nuclear bomb the soviet state was interested in the material

and pragmatic results way more than ideology i mean that's just one of the countless examples of that ok so i si goos work was not producing results and greater crop lds it does not seem probable that his method of growing crops would have become widespread in the soviet union ok

so i'm going to call bullshit on the things they're saying it's not proven so all we can do is infer

about what we should trust when it comes to this right

and i don't trust the things they say about licentcle they're not proven there's no proof behind them ok so there's that ok everything we know about genetics is wrong there is no gene mendel claim to discover a gene

and i'm going to tell you what a gene is a gene is a unit of heredity right some kind of essence within us that is responsible for our outward appearance essence right it's a metaphysical essence the problem isn't that it's essenialist it's that it's a it's a one sided vulgar satanic materialist view of essence according to the

the geneticis

the gene propagandis

a gene is a line of a pure line of

hearredity

that comes at the so let me put it this way

this is how licenco described it what these gene

can i say jean tard what they were saying

was that

the organism was merely the nutritive soil around which the subsistence of the gene the essence would be propagated so the point was nothing matters about the outward reality of the organism only the inner essence matters the gene the gene passes the organism is just some shit on top

that's meant to propagate the gene and this is further

this is further elaborated by dumb asses like dawkins in his dumb ass gen tard book the selfis gene ok

and the reason they arrive at this conclusion by the way

has absolutely nothing to do with scientific discoveries or experiments it has with the metaphysical view that which comes from actually protestantism

right which is that this is a world of p depravity of complete predestination and that our will and that our consciousness and that appearances don't matter the only thing that matters is the fixed dogmatic essence which i have termed the anglo box and that's the essence of what the idea of the gene is it's an undisturbed undiluted

youur essence which is the real meat and potatoes behind everything ok now according to the now from this stem i'm not trying to moralize it but this is where it fits very nicely with the racialist theories of the time which you races in a similar way like there are pure races right it's about purity this this whole obsession

purity came from this now sen blew the bucking lid off of all of this he completely debunked this bullshit and he was basically pointing out how no actually purity is not how of biology works actually when things become pure in biology because he was a dialectical scientist when things are pure in biology

you actually lead to generation and corruption when you have biological purity you lead to degeneration and corruption by sentle pointed out how crossing crops

produced more potent results

then pure uncontaminated lines

of succession

and this is what the real controversy was about

and any dumb as dog breeder also knows that when you cross breeds

with dogs they're going to be more healthy and more virile

and more you know

whatever but when you have pure breads they're going to have all these fucking health problems right and it's also ry when you have incest you have a lot of problems with the fucking offspring so lysenko was bringing this to the table and this is what he was arguing with these people about and the russian scientific establishment at the time

was completely fucking losing their mind over it they wanted to continue to believe in pure undiluted chains of succession around which the organism is merely the nutritive soil and that random mutations in this essence this one sided essence they call a gene is the only thing responsible for the organism

so the whole controversy is about this organisms participate in their essence or organisms merely like a completely superficial thing on top of an essence a dialectical view

views a dialectic between form and content

right

the gene people think say only content form does not matter form does not matter only content matters the dialectical view is that

form also matters form also participates in defining content form is the only expression of content ok

and that's why i sad you know another another thing too is that what i know about shia theories of predestination from shia islam

it's interesting because there's this view which you also find i think in catholicism and elsewhere probably a russian orthodox theology as well that you can change predestination you can change fate it's not just one essence and then everything else is well your hands are tied you can change fate you's still only one fate but you can change it right

and that's really where lysenko was coming from not from the theology but when his approach to biology he was basically saying organisms are not merely the nutritive soil

of some kind of gene

organisms participate

in generating their own essence

organisms play a role

in the process

of their own selection

let me le i actually took a note

and i'll word it the best way i can and i'm goin to word this

and i want you guys to just basically like

let's turn off the music because it's a distraction

i want you to spread this around k

it's the organism

it's actually very simple it's a

the organism

yes here we go i wrote this down in july twenty second twenty nineteen holy fuck it's been a long time it's been like three years

that i wrote this down in my notes

the organism participates in the very nature

that endanders its selection

so according to the darwinian theory of natural selection

the organism does not participate in the nature that endangers its selection

because that nature is just a gene so an organisms here a random mutation happens

and then

nature selects for

that organism

but what i the licenco was coming from was that the organism participates through its life activity and through its interaction with its environment a lot of people think this is all about environment versus

versus

inborn but that's not really the point the point is

the organism is also

playing a role

in defining its inner essence ok

so the organism participates in the very nature that endanders its selection

so the idea for lysencle for example is this

lot of people it's just lamarchism the it's not just fucking lamarchism it's a much more nuanced and fucking subtle thing

that lysenko was trying to say

it's not just lamarqism ok

what he's basically saying

if the genus extense froll any organism it's more successful

jens do not fallking reproduce in that way stop with their stupid

fucking richard dwkins dumb fuck

understanding of biology where you think a gene is basic like an alpha male and if the alpha maile's successful in piping a bunch of bitches and the mors that's not how genes work you fuckin dumb ass at the fuckin microbiological level so shut a fuck up with your dumb ass selfish gene fuckin bullshit

because what you're talking to me about is fucking metaphysics you fucking dumb ass

if the gene is mar success like but basically the body is basically like a market and cells are like a market where there's all these genes competing with each other on the marketplace of genetics and the more successful gen you are a fucking idiot ok you need to read plato and pray to god

anyway continuing

as i was saying

as i was saying

a gen

lysencle was saying this is his fucking point for example

if a gerode is trying to reach for leaves is it is going to know that's not what he was saying it's not what he was saying what he was basically saying

is that

the things organisms experience in their life based on their interaction with their environment

come to influence heredity

now that experience is not simply a

like

trying to reach for leaves it also takes the form of the inducing of trauma

so the inducing of external trauma into the organism

it leads to irreversible changes

lysinca was basically trying to point out there's a deeper harmony between organisms

the environment

and microbiology

and that

organisms are not just the result of random mutations

now the gene tards are trying to tell us

because they can't even a they don'll know how life works so they're trying to account for the origin of life and they're saying

well has

the origin of life is r n a world where there was just a bunch of little squiggly little things dancing around in

ok

every fucking dummss knows that when you in real science when you are trying to establish

a chain of evolution

you should be able to see like the smallest microorganisms that we supposedly descended from are still there in the ocean so show me where the r n a world is there should still be an r n a world somewhere in the thermal vents

deep below the sea

because we all know evolution doesn't work where it's like you start as one thing and you become a person no it's a simultaneous process where it's like you branch off and

that's why these primitive microorganisms single celled organisms they're still around they didn't fuck and go anywhere okay so if r n a world in this thesis is correct

which is again a way of trying to elevate d n a and r n a as the essence of what organisms are

where is the r n a world are there any environments where there's just r n a floating around

i i don't even know is there guys i actually don't know thisliz personally i didn't even study it

because i just find it preposterous are there places

on earth

where you just have a bunch of r n a floating around still

because if you don't our in a world is wrong i hope you know that

no viruses are not just r n a viruses are encased in proteins and viruses are propagated through organisms

so saying viruses are the origin of life is fucking stupid because it's a chicken and egg type of thing viruses are propagated and mutate through organisms

ok

um

could they account for certain changes i don't believe any mutations are truly random i just don't

there are no random falking mutations i don't believe that i am willing to go so far on this i don't even care what experiments say

intuitively in my heart i am convinced

that

when two people fuck

their mood the reason for either fucking their emotions their soul where they are symbolically in the symbolic order psycho and analytically their soul

these things are the reason for why

the offspring turn out the way they are

it's not random

like why do i have on a kid with blonde hair and a kid with brown hair because when you had bl when you had sex giving birth to the blonde hair guy

there was some there was an actual reason for that you understand

i don't believe in this word randomness

randomness is actually not can you guys prove there's any such thing as randomness that's a metaphysical claim when you say something is random

what you're really telling me

is that you don't know the reason for why

like you say ougre has when i throw a dice on the floor

it's random

it is not random

there's an actual physical reason for why it's going to land in the way that it does

it's just that that reason

is not attending to the reason you're attributing to the outcome

which is that you want it to land in a certain way so i want the dice

to land in a certain way but i don't know that it's going to guarantee this outcome

so you call it random

but the truth is that it's not random

ok

so

i don't believe in randomness now you could say the double slit experiment it's the closest you can get

to metaphysical randomness in nature

but the paradox of the double split experiment

is that

we actually don't know if it's random

was it meant to be that all along

was it meant to condense in the way that it does all along

that's the fucking reason why it's a paradox

full chaos

i don't think chaos is not real

chaos is merely

the absence of knowledge

but the reason chaos is real dialectically speaking is because

material reality precedes our knowledge of it

our knowledge is not already there

and that's a very powerful point

that's why i am chaos

you understand

chaos is not the just reason because

reason

by the intellect the reason

that moves the intellect

and the reason that moves nature

are inversely related and inversely proportional

okay

continuing

licenco

rejected

the absurd fucking claims of the gene tards at his time

according to which again i explained everything the organism is merely a nutritive soil around which

a the gene is propagated

we know now that genes are not the essence of cells and not the essence of organisms now

people come to think that

because in the process of cellular reproduction

everything in the cell seems to

disappear except

the d n a or the r n a i get it i forgot

i forgot what is the process called of cellular reproduction the process where the cell splits and it

you learn this symbiology it splits and then it comes apart and returns

when the cell is grinded down ded mitosis in the process of mitosis

when the cell is grinded down

to its smallest

most essential level

yes it's the d n a or it's the ron a i forget which one i'm pretty sure d n a it's the d n

ok the nuclear d n a is the

thing that survives my tosis

everything else is reproduced

so this has led to the assumption in microbiology that genes are the essence of how

cells come to be that genes are the cause in other words right

in the nana phase yeah

that genes are the cause right but this is completely unfounded

first of all

it's another issue of the chicken in the egg

so

in the anaphase when it's just the d n a

um

why does the d n a behave in the way it does what we know now

that

the d n a actually

um

codes for the proteins that it does for reasons established

beyond the d n a itself beforehand in the cell

so it seems like the d n a is the essence

but this is an issue of time we didn't begin with the d n a in the d n a grew into a cell you had the cell first so the cell is what

you can so put it this way

this so

of the organism

is just as much responsible for determining the d n a

as the d n a is for determining the cell that's what we know now

because of the deeper process of their interaction the cell has been shown to be capable

of influencing the dn a

which means we are not dealing with the situation of one sided causation as the geneticist

had previously claimed

which basically is what vindicates lyicenko's whole point i mean lyicenco was not making these crazy claims

where he rejected microbiology

d nay had not been discovered by lysenko's time and had it been discovered lysenko would have acknowledged it

he just wouldn't have called it a jene okay

my cycle was correct

there are no genes there is no unit of heredity

organisms reproduce themselves

in ways

that

are holistic

they don't just fucking reproduce themselves according to the dictates

of some underlying essence

some fixed one sided underlying essence which is called a gene

ok

so you have to understand that this licencal thing is not a joke it's not like oh you houses a joking and meaning

no

i mean when you actually guess on the surface i am

but when you look into this shiit

you will have your fucking mind blown

that lyicenco was actually correct

yes he was deeply misinterpreted

i mean yes he was fundamentally misinterpreted yes

um

they had made all of these grand stupid claims about lysenko that he didn't say

claims about things that he did that he didn't do thegal lfencle thought you could turn a horse into a

a pig or something stupid like that which is not what he fucking was saying

lysentco forces us to re evaluate though that the process of evolution and this is proven by the way just in the holes that we're seeing in evolutionary synthesis organisms come to be in ways that

i mean look

the bible

or whatever the abrahamic religions say that

some people who sin were turned into pigs right

and they became pigs

i mean

look

we don't know but

i mean maybe it's fucking possible that

that's what falking happened okay

i mean look at how fucking similar pigs are to us it's weird it's frankly weird elephants too so

i mean

that's a very crazy example but

just think about it when it comes to other species like

is the reason a polar bear

different from a regular bear because of random mutations no i'm sure

the species the way speciation works in other words

is a way more complicated than we thought before where it's just like

grand immutations no speciation

is something that organisms also participate in endangering through their living being

and to prove to you this is not a crazy claim

i'm just going to fucking simplify it to you in like

the most simple way possible

gany

do you really believe

that an organism a life

form

is purely do you really believe that throughout all of the contingencies it faces

all of the random shit that happens externally

do you actually think

some predefined code of a gene can account for all of that

don't you think that when we think of life

isn't that a way of like isn't that a necrophiliac way of looking at life

isn't this way of looking at life ere it's all predetermined by some dead matter

some dead cold

there's no life in that

isn't life something where

determination has a level of contingency

do you guys think organisms have a deeper reason for wanting to survive

or

surviving a wanting is a loaded term

but you guys

think that

even intuitively when we think of life doesn't it make more sense

that an organism strives to be and to live

or

a cause beyond just predefined code isn't there just some life force there that

it just

wits trying to live somehow

how can you say that a life form is that you know what

you know what mendell and the jeane tards are trying to do

they're trying to reduce

biology to chemistry

because the whole purport

of anglo saxon materialism has been

the reduction of the entirety of being

to a world of dead matters

and again this is because of the protestant theology

of the world of total depravity

everything is just a dead piece of matter

with a dialectical view doesn't view things as a dead piece of matter

it views matter as constantly in motion

and matter as constantly endandering

it's opposite

it views it as a dialectic of form

and content

you don't just begin with a dead word and dead matter and then all creation proceeds from that

creation participates in the cause of its creation

according to the theology i'm familiar with

man can even alter god's fate for man

that's how powerful our will is

right

and what is will at the natural scientific level really

mean do you think

there's so much conti and cope people create like

ok guys

we become human beings and all consciousness all will

oh

contingency begins there really

you don't think

human beings are thinking

our ability to think and contemplate

and make choices

don't you think that should have implications for how we view

matter

and the universe what about the universe gave rise to this well there's something there

that contains the seed of this even if you're an atheist you have to admit there is something there that contains the seed of this

we're not just a fucking accident

reducible to a baseer lesser form of rocks and dirt and less matter

we prove in our very being

that there's a deeper

reality to nature then brocks and dirt and shit

okay

um

and even if you're an atheist you have to accept that

how can dirt give rise to us we're just reducible to dirt all human beings are just an accident and ok so the ability for matter to acquire

self reflexivity to think about itself

that's just an accident

don't just

happen to move in a certain way and that's just

what happened right you really expect us to fucking believe that

fuck and bullshit

didn't lysenco pseudosynce cause more famines

it is so fucking unbelievably

anti communist i'm sorry to tell you this

and you may just be uneducated

right i accept the possibility you're misinformed uneducated but at the core root of its

pathology at the core root of its pathology

anti communism is based in mental

re i can't say that it's based in mental

disturbances

at its root

at its root

it is so fundamentally irrational

it is so fundamentally

inconceivably stupid

i don't know how you can say this shit

and i'm going to explain to you why actually and you're going to feel bad when i explain it to you

i thought the cause of the nineteenth so it wasn't the nineteen thirty three famine

that was because stalin ate all the grain

now it's because of lysenco

then the famine in

forty eight which was the next famine that happened the famine of forty seven forty eight

that was because of licenco not war

when the ok licenco i'll explain it like this licenco rose to prominence licenco

he rose to prominence wen

um

so let's see

so the thirty three famine was before lysancle

so you have to understand if lysenka was the thirty three famine the biggest one you have a mental problem right so i have to explain this to you

i have to really explain this to you

before lysenko acquired any prominence in the soviet

scientific community

the soviets had the biggest famine in soviet history

which was the thirty two thirty three famine in ukraine

and elsewhere it was also in kazakhstan and also places right

so clearly there's a precedent for these kinds of famines to happen the causes

you can attribute to whatever

two

is it really probable that lysenco was the reason for later famines that happened th the only one being the forty seven forty eight famine

which was

three years after the most devastating war in the history of russia

that was msancra's fault

no even his storiographers this is improbable right so what these dumb focks do is they say

that

licenco was responsible for the famine of the great leap forward in fifty eight to sixty two or sixty one in china

yet again the great leap forward follows all of the patterns of the

famine of thirty two to thirty three is it really probable that lysanco was the fucking reason for that famine

furthermore

let me continue to debunk the stupid falking idea that lysenko's ideas were responsible for famine

licencos ideas when were licencles ideas were adopted

after thirty three

the only time a famine happened

was in forty eight after the forty seven forty eight after the war

if licenco's work was responsible for famines why was it that licenco's practices

practices in agriculture

were adopted in the soviet union for like a decade or more

and there was no famines in that time

if it's junk science

shouldn't there have been a constant never ending famine

for as long as lysenko's ideas were accepted

where it turns out lasenko's ideas were accepted for a far greater period of time

then

the famines

you have a debate opponent waiting in show queue

percy

perfect

perfect

perfect

speak mendeloid

speak mandellan speak speak

speak

speak stop on mutual fucking mike and speak

ok

you what do you want to debate

perfect who are you on twitter

madam

lorre

caly ok the most annoying fuck on twitter let's continue

so you all want to defend the debunk fake science of genetics right

ok it's not debunked in

go ahead continue

ok so i mean im

your

obviously like a

msancoist right so

i'm a actually i believe in real science

yeah explain to me why no one uses his theories

right now

no one uses lysencos theories right now the 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 fucking challenging and experimental theories do you mean to say ho ho no no no no no we're going to ratch you to go dowd this fucking rabbit hole for hundreds and hundreds of years it was accepted

that

the

earth side 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 lysanco has not been adopted by these dumb fuck idiot scientists

that means it's wrong or it's somehow incriminating upon m 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 lamarchism was first of all never fully debunked it just fell more out of favor in comparison to darwin's theories because the ideologist of the scientific establishment shut the fuck up shut your fucking mouth the ideologist of the anglo american establishment ran

wild with darwin's theories social darwinism and all this race bullshit because they got fucking excited about the metaphysical implications of darwin completely distorting any kernel of real scientific value so yes lamarkism only fell out of favor because of ideology

but even because doud fell out of favor that doesn't mean it was ever fucking debunked

you seem to have a view that these but you seem to have a view that sut the fuck up shut the fuck up shut the fuck up you seem to have a view that these biologists know more than they actually fucking do in reality biologists don't know shit unversy myself

oh you're in the university

no i sud it it myself so it's studed ok you studied by single right you studied by single o you studyed by single

no nobody studies licanco nobody does so you know shit about licancle

yeah actually because i've done some historic research myself

oh you've done research yourself okay so what do you know about licancle you about ko and in school but because you know his ideas were never adopted because of

p useless how do you know how do you know shut the fuck up shut the buck i'm i'm going to stop you there shut the fuck up shut the fuck up shut the fuck up shut the fuck up shut the fuck up shut the fuck up shut the fuck up and i can point how do you know they were useless genetic how do you know they're useless

because we have no scientific advancements apoint you

from his ideology

how do you know

there's nothing to show for it

really it because soviet grain yields in the time

that lysenko was in charge of that

appear to show an increase of gran yields

the soviets predating icink in the soviets af after licencle and increase in cropls after the id adoption of licencles methods his ideas were shit ok ok how do you know that hisse ideas were shit what's your argument

is that he has absolutely nothing to show for

so look

i need some basically run shut the fuck up shut your fucking mouth you run your fucking mouth you run your fucking mouth shut the fuck up you are saying

you don't understand basic logic here even if it is true

that l sencos 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 shit 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 evi ok so you're saying because no one is reproducing licencos experiments or trying to within any good faith

that means there's no merit to them

even his own experiments ok i don't mean to logic word this but are you aware of the appeal to the authority

ballacy because that's all you're fucking doing right the people in charge i'm doing it so it's all wrong not authority it's actual like i listen i personally i personally listen i don't make my money i don't make my money i don't

then kind of debunked right ok ok how is it debunk go ahead

when no one else can reproduce your results

then your ideas are debound k you again don't understand basic logic and i'm so sorry to fuck and humiliate your brain in front of your mother right now

telling you this

watch if you do not make an effort

to reproduce someone's fucking work that does not mean it cannot be reproduced

you don't know if it can or cannot be reproduced until you try to beus starved millions of people ok when did it starve millions of people

was it what the forty's

ok one

forty six forty seven ok

do you know ok ok so what was significant about the year forty six forty seven do you know

what you mean is there any context you're not you're not disclosing to us about the year nine hundred forty six and on nine hundred forty seven going on in those yearsthing context so the could be a famine in ninetd thenty six or forirty seven 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 thirty million people does that not matter which decimated soviet infrastructure to the fucking stone a about the fucking war which decimated the soviet economy and infrastructure to the fucking stone age have you ever considered that maybe a factor

you understand that the soviets themselves like in the fifties said that you know thinkos idea failed to meet their economic goal didn'tly did not icincs grainds were fine krushov

decided to adopt the american version of agriculture because of his general be shut the fuck up i'll explain the entire historiographical and sociological reasons shot fking mouth shut fkinguth shtre falking mouth

sut your fucking mouth you sound like a gobbling chicken right now i fucking can't stand your fucking gobbling chicken the fuck up shut the fuck up i'm muting you if you don't shut the fuck up

first of am

the reason is simple

krustov and his friends

we're part of the same stratum as the soviet scientific establishment who li senco shmiliated because he was the barefooted peasant that completely humiliated these fucking like si you know what he's gettinged he doesn't know how to shut his fucking mouth he doesn't know who's fucking discord he's in so he's fucking muted there you go the dumb ass is muted and we can finally explore the real sociological and historographical reasons for

the rejection of licencle kruschov

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 krusjov was loyal to and was a part of

so after stalin died and when khruschov conspired with his friends

to take power

lyicencle was rejected in part and parcel with the overall sociological change implied by the denunciation of stalin all of the old people

after the thirties

to be clear not the twenties who were purged all of the people from the thirties became rehabilitated and the same people who had power across literature art

a science they all became rehabilitated under kruhov 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

ok finally

we can see in practice

kruschov's rejection of lysentcle through his adoption of american style true scientific agriculture and this took the form

of krusjov's virgin lands

campaign

when he wanted to emulate large scale american agriculture as opposed to the proto ecological

orientation lysenca 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 read sovert krushov adopted the fucking brain dead american

standard big agriculture and it was a fucking catastrophe and the only reason there wasn't a fucking famine in the soviet union as a result

of krushov's reckless worship of corn

and american agriculture was because the soviets pathetically

had to start importing grain

from its fucking satellite countries and its allies the soviets

imported grain

the soviet union which used to produce

surpluses of grain

the whole point of collectivisation was producing surpluses of grain for industry so up until

krushov the soviet union was producing a surplus of grain

so for you to fucking say that you was rejected because it was wrong is fucking brain dead

now'minala mute him

y

be done

go ahead respond

so i mean

the reason largely that the

under khruchev they had to import grain

was that they had to

they boost meat and milk supplies

and they had to feed the cattle ok so what was the result of the virgin so was was ro agricultural policy successful or not successful

compared to reform im and 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 and that they could trade withort grain from

yp

that's great

the soviet union had enough of an industrial surplus to buy grain but otherwise they would have starved go through py 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 when famines happened twice under stalin during collectivization which established

the industrialization that prevented the famine under khrushev's dumas policies in the first place and after the most devastating war in the fucking history of humanity probably

so i would say that stalin's record is pretty good licenco's ideas were adopted after the famine of thirty two and thirty three and it looks like to me that he did pretty fucking well

yeah i know

yeah it does why ok let me ask you a simple logical question you know fuck up i don't give a fuck about any scientist every single scientist i can suk my cock every single scientist can come here and suck my cock do not in the authority of these fraudulent pce of shit scientists don't fuk a bok the authority of scientists in the crock and presence of the con demands the scientist suck his coc not

authority of fucking scientists in my fucking presence they will all suck my cock second of all

i don't give a fuck about your appeal to authority boy you're notw talking to the fuck and con there's no authority of science here you understand second of all i mean you can beond authority there shut the cuck up shut the fuck have you haven't made an argument don the authority you have not made a single fucking argument here so finally there was another listen let me ask you a simple logical question shut your fucking mouth and you know i got you cornered here you can't say

a fuking shit why is thebout genetically modified the fuck up i'll explain g m os 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 can coincidentally

was

after the most devastating war in history soun if slysenko'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 you know things are grey right so maybe they weren't one hundred percent damaging they did contribute to the famine right so ok what evidence 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 ok and you give me a primary soort give me a raw in potatoes primary source

let's talk about let's talk about the benefits i don't want to shift ars i want a raw meat and potatoes primary source that lsencos ideas contributed to famine

right

you want me to look that overright 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

ok

what benefits do you think lysanco's idea

brought to the field

oh sure like sanose ideas first of all

a for practical this is what lyicenco was concerned with most of all lyicenco hated metaphysics

he hated bullshit he hated he didn't like he didn't care about philosophy he cared about

feeding people that was the whole thing 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 leicenter also contributed that

yeah you can look at any account of soviet grain yields in the period in which lysencle's methods were adopted

i can link you that if you want i can link you it in the in the discord if you want

now and get

ok you want me to link right now soviet grainyelds

yup

soviet grain yields

here we go

rain production in the ussr

ok i have to find beginning in thirty two

bas

lissenko was right

here you go i mean this is pretty damning stuff i mean it's like it' that is 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 checking you look in fact checking

this is just what i pulled from google right now

but everyone is free to ilink more for him

game

so this is just one

ok

second of all

m

the also important thing

was that

lysenco 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

is not because of his meat and potatoes practical methods when it came to agriculture but inadvertently he discovered that biology works in ways

that the geneticis

weren't able to account for and now that we're seeing that all these chang discoveries in microbiology

which again traditional evolutionary synthesis cannot account for

lysenco's ideas seem awfully

proximate proximate 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 asked how is this possible well lysenca already provides the paradigm

with which to explain how these discoveries are even possible in the first place

so the link that you provided ends in on nine hundred forur

yeah well that's just what i found on google

i can try to find other ones

i searched through the

soviet

so

then i'll get more i'll get i'll get another one

okay

um um

so i mean epigenetics the

doesn't disprove

you know gene theory in any way why not

one

weh because it it's

essentially

that the fact that there are triggers that you know determine what phenotypes can be present ok sure can you give me an example can you give me an example of these triggers

so for example certain hallucinategenic drugs can trigger a

like certain mental health issues and and i there are like there's like bct wait waiting on thank you pirate you thank you prior

but hold on one one

ok

i asked you for a gene trigger i didn't ask you for a hallucinogenic effect

on someone's brain i asked you know it it's an environmental

thing right so something that you would expose yourself to

that wy trigger so what what gene is responsible for that phenotype

for the like

the dip

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

a

and i want to go through the study on stream to just lookp 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

because jeans are pretty co well i mean you're already way beyond the territory of the people senko was arguing with because according to them

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 ary right

ok but they varied as the nutritive soil of

the gene

right yees so they were wrong in some aspects i'll give you that

ok

so you're saying lyicencle was right at the genetics is a new field that made it a little bit more you know what i genetics means

it's the effects of noo what does it mean the word epy genetic what does that mean

ah i don't know the etymology

ok it means beyond

genetics

because genetics are no longer sufficient

as a paradigm with which to explain

the phenotypes that we have

y so that every time they look for jeans

but that doesn't disprove

deans right

what do you mean i doesn't disprovinges 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 d n a

do not have the casual

role that they claimed before that they did

there is the process by which

traits are selected for happens beyond the gene

that's pretty fuckin 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

a rose

because of a few factors but one of the factors one of the important factors

was the fact thats transgenerational inheritance was proven

based on environmental stimuli and triggers like the induction of trauma

secondly and this is a very important context secondly example secondly and this is a very important context

the paradigm of genetics was failing the attempt to isolate a gene or a trait

was failing so they switched

from genetic

causation explanations for traits which was a complete failure they couldn't find jeanes that were responsible

pheno types in discrete ways they found that well there's multiple g genes that link to tr directly to traits right

no because i'll explain to you that this way

i you can say that traits are dependent n no this is why it's wrong because you can say traits are dependent on a gene

right

that doesn't mean a gene caused it which means put it this way if you take something away you're going to have an effect if you take a gene away

there could be an effect

a so called strand of d n a

but that doesn't prove that d n a is the site of causation

second of all there are very very few tade traits

that can be directly linked

to strands of what's we see on the street understand of the proteins that make up like what the

being is like are directly

translated from the d n a strands 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 the fundamental what is it called the fundamental dogma of

microbiology which was disproven

recently no so it's not eever disproven that's a fact if you want to it's not it's not okay we're going to actually i'm going to walk i want you to watch my stream right now because i'll watch you watch youuh walk you through this

ok you're going to

i'll walk you through it ok so this is prom a reputable source this is not from a licencles source it's from a reputable source it's the end of the gene as we know it we're not nearly astermed by our genes as we once thought

and let me see

so this is the paradigm you're talking a whatout d n a template

proteins developing characteristics

so the central dogma can be conceived as a one way flow of information from the code to the g so this is the direct thing you're talking about right

i

then came the brilliant technology of sequencing genes

and let's continue

so

scientists now understand that the information in the d n a 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 type or prior can produce a story

i

enzymes and other proteins

eggs and sperm cantain divestrate factors

sell some other products of the parent's jeans

ok so d n a is not a cause active sense it is a described as a passive database which is used by the organs to enable it to make the proteins that it requires

so

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

ok

all of these things that this article is pointing out indicate

that genes do not

directly

code for proteins in the 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 discovery is rising which show will sweep the inversion of the process which basically means

the germ line can be crossed

and that

d n a itself the way d n a itself works is altered

by the cytoplasm or sorry with the rest of the cell

outside of the nucleus

ok

there's d n a there too righte

where

like outside of the no i know the mitochondrial d n a i know

but

the cytoplasm which is not the mitochondrial d n a only

can affect the nuclear dn a

the way it's expressed so all of these things are interdependent in ways

we were absolutely clueless about before

only we weren't clueless about them

because m senco already understood this based on his paradigm of biology thk to do with this why

because he had not he had no idea about this he didn't even believe in he could no no

lysenko did not

reject microbiology he just wasn't a microbiologist but the way lysenko describes macrobiological processes

seems to coincidentally aliine

with what we're now discovering about microbiology so that's my point

o his theories were based again on the markism which is the idea they were not

the mark was just as much ok darwins or you arwin was just as much darwin was just as muchu and changes to n know you're not you're reading the no you're reading the n p c script right now

darwin was just as much an influence on lyicenco as la marqu was

lysenko merely claimed that the whole scale repudiation of remarq lamarque

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 lamark lamark at least thought it was like somewhat gradual lysanco believed there was almost no limit to how much know no that's not true lamarq believed that in nature it was gradual which is probably something lysancle also believed

but as a scientist lsincle is not try icink is not just trying to emulate nator trying to direct the powers and forces of nature in a practical ring way thatsh mark w you what you're saying is you me me explain you how fucking 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 hit a candle and light a candle

and then because thomas edison wanted to be more rapid about it with his light bulb

that prove no well no it's the same thing lysenco was a scientist

who wanted to take the insights of the markism and a apply them practically

right any

but that what i'm saying is that maarkism is wrong

it's not

yes it is

so you're saying it is impossible so if so and there is no possibility

so inheritive characteristics

cannot be passed on

acquired characteristics not be pass used and disuse ok so it's not like

you know the more i reach for something the longer icent didn't say that either licento hold on licento was based in the russian scientific tradition of which his name in minchur and whatever that guy's name was before soviet ideology by the way yeah which was based on vertalization and things like that lsentco was talking about induced changes he was not talking about use or disuse i don't know where you're ing that

o

well then then that's an aspect of lamark's thinking that licencle or sorry lamark's theory that licencle did not adopt

licencle didn't base it i mean use maybe could play a factor but

the main thing for licencle well why you know the main thing for licencle is environmentally induced changes

right but that's the thing is these environmentally induced changes right he believes are based on what are use and disutes right so he know he do where spray he sprayed low temperature water on certain crops

in order to try tos called nalization that was discovered by someone before licencle and it's still used to to this day i don't know n know and there is a variety of you know how no you know think that lower temperatures can actually produce better that is actually something 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 co continuously apply these

these cold waters

to this plant

that will actually change the

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 method never li

anything like that fernallization by itself cannot but when applying lyicenco's special methods

we're inducing generational change

you imj saying you never observe the generational change that came from anything like that

right

we did with lysenco and his special experiments his experiments were not able to be reproduced because his method

wasn't able to be reproduced because you have to know that he showed that vertalization a you know

a great idea and it can even increase crop yields in some cases right but he didn't show that it actually changed the organism

and that it would change it 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 did they did they implemented them in the soviet union and in china

um until

he fell out of favor with krustov for again for reasons that have nothing to do with science

and so again 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 just to avoid any kind of yeah i mean here's the thing i agree yeah i listen thist and i agree but licenks methods listen licencles methods were very experienceially 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

but but genetics does i do foresee nor is talk listen there is talk that russian scientists

are starting to m

reassess lysenco's work in light eppy genetics

and i heard also the same is true is going on in china so we are going to see a return of lysanchoism

into the twenty first century

if it's if his ideas are correct then we would expect that right

i do expect that

yea um i don't but hey i could be wrong right i'll admit that

but you don't and let's look at it how let's look at how rationalus t's see let's look at aur rational facing there would be it would be a cros ok 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 wness collpse of evolutionary synthesis at the scene what we're witnessing the development of just ok this is what soy read it scienist is like oh well this new thing completely contradicts everything we thought about genetics but that's ok because that's just deepening our knowledge of genetics at what point doesn't contradict everything we thought about genetic yes it does and it reallyup like the lobs

if the are so listen to what you're saying is just as absurd as if you're in a fucking boat

and on the bottom floor of the boat

all these holes of water suspin 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's no idea youvll right

ok how can a ca standing how can a ok ok we get out ok explain this to me

how can explain to me how can a coherent theory of genetics survive

all these holes

so that's like saying you know i

the theory of gravity

right no it's not the new the original idea grab i came along and youk com mon actually gravity and listen on and it we still on gravity is an awfully simple general idea the idea of gravity is simply like this it's the force that

pll sit down

and it begins from there why are things in spirit wder it's the force

that is responsible for the wey the way in which things in space interact and it stops there but genetics

is a very different it' is very more much more specific than the idea of gravity

genetics is an idea according to which

know the nature of organisms

ok 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 fucking gravity at all

theres a much there is the only thing responsible for why were goanisms are the way they are literally called a unit of heredity

ok

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

and which is not fucking true

y

we have we have multiple

things to 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

of cardiology that but we don't have any association between g gmenanic on ho on s first of all first of all

geneticallyll those things you're talking about

are based on pot smokers do the know a those things all those things shut up about pot smokers for a second all those things you're talking about

are based on widespread multiple

multiple quote unquote genetic associations means there is associations between

having certain certain strands of this on your d n a 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 a different fact when you when you bring statistics into the math it fucking collapse the second thing is dna is not the same as genes oka

just because there is an association with certain traits and your d n a

doesn't mean your dn a is functioning as a gene

genes are a segment of d n a like like for example building molecules for example a more holistic view of the risks of

having a certain disease

can probably be assessed from your parents more holistic

biological constitution rather than just their

i'm sure you would yield far more results

you're not just your parents sometimes it's like a sometimes it skips a generation there are certain things like male pattern balness that skips a generation right there's no association between any number of genes in male pattern bonness and then we have certain things like like super new mary right you're making it seem like i'm denying you're making it seem like i'm denying a complex science of heredity

rather than rejecting

the genetic paradigm of erradity

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

yeaes so how do how are things inherited

things are inherited that you want to sak doesn't matter you want to give you the birds and bees talk

because you know that d n a comes from your parents right

m

yes what's your point

so your

it is a

like a part of your mom and a part of your dad and it makes you

d n a is not a gene d n a is something inside a cells d n a is something inside of a cell's nucleus

any codes for a gene

no it does not

yes it yes they yeah they do

you don't even know what you're saying oney

they don't say the mendeloid the mendeloid gene tards do not say it codes for d

they say that there are strands of d n a that and that's what genes ares the strands of

no did this strand do you know the d n a is made out of

out of june bases

do you know ian this trans i those basins

are called jeenes

by these bereholds

so a specific length of code

when it's not a code don't call it a fucking code you fuck it right out

computers nerd

it's not a bucking code

men look at crisper

oka if jeans weren't real what the fuck 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 you didn't know that

even after genetic modifications into the d n a

that for whatever reason

generationally it returns to the original thing and the body treats it as like a

forein

a foreign injury it treats it as an injury

we haven't had crisper for generations

but with g m o's that's how you didn't know that's how g m o's work

the organism treats the genetic mode the organism treats for whatever reason the genetic modification

as an injury

and it corrects for the injury across generations

well

treats it as yeah it it like recognizes

ah specific

no so there's an epigenetic reason for that

when you alter plants genetically

across several generations they don't retain

the changes if you're altering them genetically aren't you already admitting to the fact that there are

no because what i'm claiming is that all you're doing is butchering and mutilating the organism

across several generations

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

eno types

don't survive in the organism actually tends

to become corrupted and no longer reproducible

which is why there are so many new generations of g mos that always have to be created

because it's not sustainable

we're actually sustaining life across generations

when you're modifying these genes these d n a

you're effectively butchering the inards of an organism and you're no there's no fact in what you're saying right now

so do you not realize that gm os don't

last across generations

they do

no they don't

they literally do not i don't know how you could be so fucking ignorant that you don't know this

gm os literally do not survive across generations they don't they always

they always have to fucking come up with new modifications for new generations because they're not sending they can breathe

i don't know what you're talking about

not

across several generations

yes they can

okay i apparently need to show you like a source or something because we've come to this crossroads so let me just do that

gm o's

like obviously you could jut on i'm going it for you hurtain organism so that they can't breathe i'm getting it for you

what is it the

yeah yeah bananas don't even have a seed anymore because they've been so terrupted by g m o's i mean there's just so much evidence for this

i'm ight to the is that you can like i'm not saying you can't make genetic changes

that cauln 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 was genetic obviousen and someoneac checking i've alged with this guy he's not giving me time to look it up he's he's arguing it's that

listen

so some one put it in fact checking

listen

when you modify an organism genetically you're basically fucking the organism up

that's pretty much that

no you're modifying it you're fucking it up you're ruining it

well i mean if if you want to say modifying its genes that's what it means the sure but you're fucking up how it works

i mean you're changing how it works

you're fucking you're making it so it becomes corrupted and doesn't live across generations no it doesn't live yeah it can live no it doesn't no it doesn't depend

i it becomes corrupted which means it becomes corrupted and degenerates across fucking generations

i think the mule can't breed right like there are things that happen that way but listen lisen

re specific ange you are a little not you are a little such a fuking idiot you're literally such a fucking idiot that you go all over the place

breeding dogs and horses and mules is not the same as fulking genetic modification

that is

no it's not genetic modification is when you directly go to the focking gene

and change it

not when you have things fuck in a cross in interesting ways modify genetics g m os are not just the result of cross breeding how do you not fucking know that

no yeah selective

selective breeding is genetically modified genetic modification but that's not what is meant by g m os

it is a it is a type of genetic modification

ok that's your little nerd actually but i reject that that's what we'reging about right now is the way in which shit reproduces genetic

so you're fucking arguing the premise right now by saying that

uh yeah

exactly

you're arguing the premise which is a form of circular reasoning you foalking domas

like you can't you haven't yet provided any evidence that disproues

that the idea of genetic

okay

that's because you can't bear with me and use your own fucking head

this is i'm inventing a logical fallacy

which is called the logical fallacy

of

wanting me to flash my cock

and the flashing cock part is where you're like instead of having to walk you instead of actually thinking rationally about what i'm arguing you want me to show you something that just proves it show you my cock to show you something that just immediately

makes you submit to what i'm saying that's what you want you want the logical fallacy of flashing the cock that something about that's not how a debate works i can't just throw you in accordingly

listen you want a palce you want me tojust show you a palllic that's going to treat you into submission i can't do that logical reasoning right you what you literally want me to do is just to show you a palllce that's going to

beat you into submission evidence b you literally want me to show you a fa a fallic you want me to show you a falce that's going to slap you into submission that's not how you arguments work

you think that science can be applied to theory somehow but that science is no

s i don't care about your dumb ass

philosophy of science which i wipe my ass what i wipe my ass with your dumb ass i don't care about your twelve year old speculation about what science i don't care what like

that's not you know that beyond it you have to show me evidence and sign

yeah you want me to you want me to show you a foulls my cock

no i offer declined

you keep you keep bringing it up though so you seem pretty eager to s eh yeah because you're saying show me evidence

you are you 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 can show you don't have to like mediate

empirical reality rationally i just it's just there it's just there

well for example i can i can show you ok for example

look on my stream right now no should i fock 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 to explain i have to explain the aesthetical reasons and where i'm coming from

i just showing you was not going to be enough

you understand so that actually is imperically in dispute here let's get to that what you want empirically

ok so your claim is that genetic is is genetic the field of genetics is falll

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 genetics is false so you're saying what is your evidence theetic 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

okay

well firstly

when you say yeah you're basically saying yes i want to direct sensory source of stimulation i know why you believe what you believe ok if you want to know why i believe what i believe

why don' you just rewind the vode and how i can tell you about

how licenko explains how macro organisms work

in terms of what we know now about microbiology better than genetics geneticists can do and the 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 ok how

so we can actually look at them right we've coated specific genes you can look at my bare ass you can look at my bear fucking hary ass prove to me it's a jot

that's not the point right that is the fucky point i'm gene don't thking tem me you look at d n a and that's proves the gene you have to make the argument that d n a is a gene

ok or it's full of jeans

so how gene what is it what is it first what 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 d n a within the gener

prove it

what do you mean by prove it

prove it prove they function as units of radity

your

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 ofan a trait what does that mean

it sounds like a you're stump by the

nal metaphysics of genetics which is the point it's fucking stupidsion doesn't make sense

ok

i'm asking you

by your own qualifications beuse you ask 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

h

so we know that things like the

things like azheimer's things like huntington ok stop stop stop stop stop

i want one example i don't want five billion that i have town individually i want to down one

alzheimer's

talk about i'm alhimer's what is the gene that is the unit of heredity of alzheimer's

h i don't know that by heart

so i'd have you have please look it up

and link the study so i can look at it onstream

and

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

so when i asked you for a unit of heredity and how it functions un you told me alzheimer's that we don't know actually

well we don't know exactly what you don't know exactly so su fuck up and stop acting like there's evidence there's not

there is ok fine you i just give fine one you find one that you do know this time

okay

oky so the lax z gene encdes the portion of the m r and a that is responsible for the production of beta

goacto cities

and translates can you a you repeat that again

yet so the lax z gen o the lack

z gan y l a c l a c

yeah

yeah a cz gene l a c gene go ahead yeah that inencudes for the portion onmr portion of m r n a go ahead

that's responsible for thes aduction

for their production

of beta galactussides

of beta galactsities what are beta galactusities

it's a specific enzyme

ok for the production of an enzyme so

you name me a strand of d n a that appears to be responsible

for the m r and a

that produces an enzyme

yes so the m r and a translates from the d n a right

ya and then it

it produces a specific enzyme

right but now that it's been proven i mean ok first of all there's two prongs to this the first prong is that's not a fucking unit of heredity

that's an intra micro that's an intra cellular

intracecellular not intra intracellular

process you're describing me about how d n a functions that never deny d n a functions in a certain way

for a cell

so for you to say it's a unit of heredity is fucking stupid

but that's what a gene is o know it's not n know it's not

because just because the d n a functions in this way within a cell doesn't mean it's a unit of heredity

ok a unit of aady would be more like the alhimer's example you couldn't fuck give me something that actually expresses and manifest at theo typical level

ok some things are very complex right ok i'm talking about phenotypical traits s of this is like the second point hold on hold on the second point

is that shut the fuck up and there's multiple things involved in gens there's many genes working together try me guys the gene thing is not wrong there's just multiple thousands of ens where it's s shut the fuck up but if you talk about shut the fuck up shut the fuck shut the fuck shut the fuck up shut the fuck up i have to meet the dmase i have to meet him he doesn't know

to shut the up he doesn't know where he is he doesn't know where he is shut your fucking gobbling chicken mouth you are a gobbling chicken shut the fuck up

second of all

ok

there's two prongs the first one

which your 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 d n a

appears

you have some relationship to an enzye

at an intracellular level well that doesn't fucking 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 trade

ok so because everything works together

but that's just if i grant to do 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

mm

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 a fucking let me get my second prong in

you just wanted to ramble why that one is really complex i don't care holl comple with there has nothing to do with anything

you have failed to give me a unit of radity

now let's hear your argument

so i provided a unit of a

no you didi

yes i did i know you did not know you did not just the codes for a specific enzyme right

direct you literally are an n p c

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 in the same

no you haven't

because if multiple different enzymes can be produced from the same gene

that means the gene is not what is fucking essential to it

no that means that there can be other things involved that doesn't mean that the gene isn't

so

it means the gene is not a wlife right but so is food

ok it's you need to stop pivoting

no're not making basic common sense are the're making stupid fucking arguments

keep up

you haven't fucking named a single gene

you've named you've named a relationship

between the production of an enzyme and a certain strand of dn a

well too bad no one denied

the role of d n a in the holistic makeup of a cell

ok

what i have denied is that d n a functions as a unit of heredity

we're talking about the process of heretity

ya and it you d n a is one hundred percent

uh have

so is everything else

there are other things that there are other things it's more complex it's more on

yet it's not a result of paganism why you pagan why w i'm noticing this pattern and you're not making any scientific arguments how you we have to start talking about religion and philosophy now because you can't make scientific 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 it give expression to the rhetic rhetoric

ive mentioned specific that goead right speak speak speak let the m p c 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 multiple things that we can link to the field of genetics multiple no mean potatoes no mean potatoes mean potatoes you like look at all the salad he's giving us look at all the fucking salad he's giving us no meaan potatoes let me explain something to you

lre given you mean let me go you've given me less than shit 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 readed 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 foking 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 clear paradigm from which you can explain the complexity that's what cencle does that's what your gene tards fail to do yes so i thinko tried to attribute you know like certain

like ideas certain theological ideas certain

philosophical ideas marxism mostly no we design and that n senko came from the russian

tradition of agrama agronomy of ivan mitcheren who is not a marxist

it just so happened to be com lysenco saw dialectical materialism as a way

two

allow him to do what he was doing

he didn't use it as the cause for his beliefter settings and expose them to the rights anglo saxon dogma did not allow him

i change

what you could educate them to do anything

that's complete horship

that's exactly what he thought it's fucking not that's your speculation about why liicentcles ideas were adopted that the western dumb masses retarded westerners have come up with

there's no evidence for the view that oh lysenko's ideas were used as a way to sorve change human nature the soviets never saw human nature as a problem to begin with they don't think it needs to be changed

what do you t n know 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

for the process that's already that's all e that's already accepted in mainstream science that's already accepted in the theory of puncture even then the fox poly fox

even the fucking mendeloids now agree there' is punctuated equilibrium and that speciation is not a gradual process but a process of violent rapid changes in geology so shut the fock up about your adualism cope

that's not true at all

really g punctuated equilibrium is not basically accepted in mainstream biology

there are still extremely gradual changes with evolution like what

ars this name i except name them

how we came from monkeys

can you prove we don't know shit about how we came from monkeys yeah we do we have

ton of fossil

we don't know how we came from monkeys dom as how was itd so many intermediate species between us and monkeys that it's in ok but you have yet to prove a process of gradual change

you know yeah we can visualize it yeah

have the foss

you can go having fossils does not mean you prove there was the change was gradual

yeah you can date them this specien ok 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 this popy what

twenty mi ten twenty 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 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 eguilibrium

yeah that's not that's not factual that's not how evolution

propagated like wait so now you're saying punctuated equilibrium is not factual

i'm saying that

that evolution is

for certain graduate

so guys not me let me explain to this guys you saying for certain it's gradual something knows we're saying for certain

let me explain i just want to use this is and i just want to use this as an example of ok i just want to use this as an example of the idiocy of the manalary 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 mongery listen n know tan chance chance chance

i am going to sleep listening to you because shut i'm not muting her i have to mute the dmas mute the damas mute dmas muta dmas shut his voice off he's so fuck and boring

you would never be a good streamer i listen to you i want to turn off my t v

you say nothing of value nothing you say has meat in potatoes nothing you say has any substance you're a complete time waster

here's the fucking point

you have yet to prove speciation is gradual

i'm not even going to 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 e why are people so willing to believe

in genetics and reject lysanch and all this stuff

en by their own lodgic

this guy saying punctuated rooms wrong it's for certain that it's gradual it's like still debated by scientists to this day there's nothing certain right

plunctuated 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 car

it's complex

whats your mom

cansuck 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 that i don't reject let me look listen chance i'm going to let you say what you want to say equilibrium

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 evolution that's something you learned when you were eight years old that's not an example of punctuated equilibrium a 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 a something and that's some shit you learned when you were five years old and you think i'm talking to a person who hasn't learned beyond that shd youven know it was befo fk mentioned it to you know so little about biology

man i know more about biology than you do that you din't know what punctuated equilibrium was before you fuck and googled it just now because i told you to

n know i was talking about it before you muted know you weren't you just mention that ok can you get on withoto without googl without googling without googing very quick without googing very quick give me an example of punctual equilibrium be sub besides the dinosaurs go ahead

i see just

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 out a bunch of fucking speeci island they use specific examples in islands where there's volcanoes they use specific examples like islands where there's volcanoes or earthquakes and shit like that that's what the they don't use these broad histor documents are when i was five i learned about the to shut the fuck 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

specific year

if a species were to be like when you were talking about islands

with a spec 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 going to use geckos or anything right i'm going to tell your knowledge of how punctuated equilibrium works you can't google it you cannot it give me it right now fifteen seconds if you can't you don't know shit fifte talk about quart elephants their dwarf there elepants and you love indonesia i ago ok oh you didn't look that up right now

no i didn't ok ok punctuated equilibrium examples i'm looking this up on google if i see those fuck and dwarf elephants

then

your fux

you're locking up in

the ok 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

good shouldn't be on google

not on the first fucking page

if you google such a specific example the fucking elephants in indonesia right

right exactly so google what are you going to google

what you do'l worry when i'm going to goole

well google it because i din't know y god

i didn't search it myself

so you didn't where did you get it from

i well i had watched the youtube video on it by a guy named stephan milo

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 i sug you watched it a while ago ok so you just admitted where you got it from you just admitted where you got it from just now thanks

so go on about indonesia my sport

what

go on go on explain your example

right so the this population of elephants was

separated

from you know the main population that we know

they

and you know suffered from a process known as island dwarf

is

there's two processes called island orphism and island gigantism

which is i gim me where punctuated equilibrium fits in

well it's a geological change right

ways the geological change

the island was split off from the mainland

because this a gradual process or a punctuated process the sea level change

gay that's not punctuated equilibrium dumass that's a gradual geological change leading to a fucking

a biological you know the population was cut off

from that's still not punctuated equilibrium

it's in the name it's punctuated dummass it's a punctuated change which means it happens very quickly

that did happen quickly

did the island split off very quickly

you didn't split off

like i said it was a sea level change

and that was very that was very quick

yeah how quick

i don't know exactly how quickly

you i don't know shit about bi i don't know the exact amount of time it took you don't know shit about biology you don't know what fucking th o

you know less about biology

than a fucking twelfth grader

ok sure

you can say what you want

but you're not making any arguments

because you literally didn't even know what punctuated equilibrium was before i told you

that's not true yes it fucking is you literally said you i literally have you on fuk and record in my video saying that it's wrong and that it's all gradual and we know that for certain

no i said we know for certain that

that evolution is gradual i never said we don't how do you know for that for certain how do you make that for certain

because we can observe the fossil records

how does the fossil record prove gradual change

because these things happened over millions of years

that is that the definition of gradual dumass

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 their time

yes they focking 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 homed species and by your own admission if you don't know

if you don't know that you did this is exactly it the first there's a first time chatter in my chat

and let's jus put it this way

you can have a punctuated evolutionary change over millions of years

holy fuck 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 its gradual

what the definition of gradual

gradual basically means

that over time

a species just changes

without any punctuated rapid changes that define a species wll it means species morph into other species in a gradual way from one species to another obviously will have

things will be punctuated ation if you're saying evolution is gradual you're saying speciation is gradual that's what you're saying

it is gradual yet

ok

that's what you're saying

yes and it is wrong

no it's not speciation is not gradual

that's not true

yes no yes it is falking true

that is not true despite a bunch of shitden 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

thu punctuated equilibrium

you have no evidence of that

it's literally bkuated equilibrium yes there is foking 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 ton in favor of punctuated equilibrium as the source of speciation there's a ton

no

what do you mean

the i'm waiting for the evidence

so i linked a whole bunch of stuff in your

check

of what i what did i ask you for

this is the spongebob thing of the guy showing patrick the idea is this your idea

and then he know it's a loop it's a loop ok

what did i ask you for

the same species changing

yes

gradually i with this photo

mmhmm

there's no problem with the photo really

how many different species are in this photo

like i said there i'm going to have to show you ult

right

so this is not evidence this is not the evidence i asked for is it

the first two you can all you can the

this is the thing you can see the gradual changes

no you can see a change between species

not within species

you understand that some of these things are 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 this isn'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

gradual change

okay

so

you know about darwin's finches

ok

i'm going to ask you for the last time

what am i asking for

you're asking for the same species that have differences

that leads in species that lead to sciation eventually yes

right

give me one example of that

ok so darwin's finch

ok what about darwin's finches

right so they showed you me the evidence to so we can read it

ok

he i looked up darwin's i'm saving time now because you're a time waster i looked it up on wikipedia

game well ok if you want to go for that

and i'm going to highlight

the relevant thing

yea

the fact that we went on my screen

i can't see your screen

ok

how many species of

birds

are encompassed by darwin's finches

so finch is one species

are you sure about that

they're not

not one hundred percent there might be different what percentage of certainty are you that it's one species

ah i think that there might bemultiple

how certain are you of

there being one

i'm not very certain that there's only one i think that you said you said there's one and then you said your sert

i never said i was certain i said i don't think i'm very certain in there being just one

oky

and then i said how certain are you and being h i wouldn't i wouldn't bet money on it

that's fine what percentage i think you said you said you're not one hundred first you said more you on first you said you're not one hundred percent

then i asked you ok what percent then and then he said actually i'm certain that there's multiple not one

did not change your mind i never i was certain i said what do you think probably you think or might 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 thought i thoughtll yeah okay

just

p c is and

now that

so way when i asked you for this example you know on when i asked you to

on 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 red example

why

because the birds change over time

the be mostly the be it's mostly about the be shape

and they do eventually become different species because

the

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 once

right

that's not relevant

there are eighteen species

of bird encompassed by darwin's finches

yea

there was zero evidence

of speciation

that is not true

what's the evidence

what do you mean

ok i am an atorian my chat

said

you giving evidence for adaptive radiation an adaptive radiation is actually an example of punctuated equilibrium

not gradual speciation

that's not true at all there are gradual changes that

ok but i ask 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 but 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 wen when there is a sudden ecological change

uhhuh

there's a radiation of organisms

right that adapt

to different

ecologies

right

that's not a gradual change

that's a result of vat different environmental differences proportionate

to the change all changes are going to be due to some sort of environment 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 timescale

except

so what do you mean by sun so you're i mean suden in the sense of punctuated equilibrium that's what i mean

but you're just pointing to any change in and you're saying that that's punctuated equilibrium and that that's a sudden change

because you're saying the change in species happens gradually over time and i'm saying thatt and 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 great

prove it

i've already shown you multiple sources you just claim they're wrong

did they answer the question i asked you

i have answered your question

you have lay on y on lord

this guy so falking stupid he's more stupid than anyone i've ever talked to in my life

i'm aady

i asked you

for one species changing to another thanking to trangle i asked you f one species i asked you for one species

i asked you for one species you change into into other species right

the finch

well that 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 the pug up

every time we find oselves

speed i'm uting im i'm uting him i'm ting him i cannot falk i'm muting this dumb fox

i'm i'm he's muted

the allla i don't know what i'm going to do i don't know what i'm going to do i don't know what i'm going to do with my life i don't know what i'm going to do

i've never experienced this level of stupid

i don't know what i'm going to fuck into i don't know

what to say

this is actually driving me insane

i ask you

but 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 ho 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

my still muted

you can talk one example

okay so the

evolution

from

homo rectist almost sve

is homo erectus a different species than homosapien

yes

so how did homo ectus so is there any species between erectus and sapient

there's some

people if there's one you just ate a bucket of shit if there's one

there are other homospecies that exist at the

and if there's one species which you're defining as a species

between erectus and sapien you just ate sirt

i don't think there is there's none

there's none yet

rec i think it's a direct link rectus

to sa i think and then there are other branches like aect

bill created

neanderthals and denizevin are neanderthals a different species than homosapiens

yeah

no they're not

yeah they are they're literally not

homone neandothalansis is different than homothapien it is not a different species is different than homone genism it is not a different species

that's a completely fucking 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

ensis and sapiens are two different species

no there's a debate

and most people say it's a subspecies of arc 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 so you're saying the change

from homoerectus to homosapiens

was gradual

yeah we can see

homotus changing so homoctus is slowly becoming homoctus is slowly becoming the modern human

homeowner that already happened

yeah yes so in the fossil record you're witnessing homoctus slowly become modern human with no punctuated

and actually even within homos can you focus on the point

i don't care about this well actually

homotus is gradually becoming modern human

yes

in the fossil record

yes

ok first i want two things from you one homorectius as a different species not a subspecies

of the same one

second

i want you to prove what you just said

okay

o i'll prove first that homo rexst is a different

yes

so i'll just link to you the wikpd article

very simple

it just says homoctus is an extinct species of archaic

ok

yeah but it's not known if that's a subsp that should be treated as a subspecies

its ss from the plastine with the earliest occurrence but

but itce

its specimens are regi gena

m

it's ok it's not settled

for neandertals it's not

exactly settled

but for homoerectus it is one hundred percent i'll just give that to you

it's part of the same species

difference

yeah i'm sorry it's a different species sure

so now link me the second thing

roove

that homoctis gradually changed into

i don't know what

ok

so gradual changes in homocectis

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

now

okay

so please give me the evidence

ok

homoectius developmental train

there we go

what i want

ok

i can show you a developmental train of

homosapiens 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 what weyeh right so that's why i'm not pointing to that right i want specifically the process scation

speci i want to thank you about the change in erect

and erectus eventually became

homosapy

ya

go ahead and explain that

well i linked the source that shows the trend in the differences

in iraq

right

the oversi is we

what's that

is this the l

we have more rectus developmental trends

so this does not look like a reputable website this looks like a fucking schizophreniic website from ninetheen ninety seven

let's see

over the lifetime of this species brain size increases from about eighty

eight hundred fifty c c and early specimens

to twelve hundred c c about half a million years ago

the later wasin the

lower range of modern human brain sizes

this growth means that the brain size means the larger brain individuals of the species fifty bra in brain size

o

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 re tire of its existence

gradually the size of the scolle

no but that's not proven necessarily it could be part of the regular variance of skull sizes across time and that it a was regular ari andn't expect that it grows over time

you don't know if you 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 homorectus

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 fucking fossils to know about genal more than one so we can create out

right

you can't because let's say i'm going to fucking break this down for you have a stupid head

let's say at

i just showed you a shot up and not no i no because i'm explaining to you how this is not even sufficient

if you find a bit a small grain

a million years ago

and then you find

a big brain five hundred thousand years ago

that doesn't mean necessarily imply a general change that could just mean

that you found

a 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

let it would

why 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 know the sample size to know it's not arbitrary

second of all of sposlson many ho ects

that samples have been found

to justify the claim of the home or rexus head size becoming biggeror smaller

so i'm going to look up homoectius

head evolution

yeah like i'm not finding this anywhere on lis we have

number of stop pivoting stop pivoting

this is the evolutionary track of humans but ok

well we're focusing on homoectus and the so called evidence you just gave y to me glus came first but we would have less and the 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 homorhctus and i'm just denying that's true we need more i need more information to confirm that then

then what evidence could i ever show you that would be enou

because you said

that showing you different fossils of differentces

then because it is so i'll tell you because you need an extremed an extraordinary amount of evidence change 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

then we see this change in brain size not just

but within the other species

before and after

ok but i'm talking about the process speciation ok here's the problem that here's the problem

in the process of speciation

we existed alongside homoctors

you know light in point

until we outbred them yeah

okay

well that's just the theory you don't even know what

know 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 that's the case

that's the reason there could be a lot of other reasons

if you say so

ok

so

can you give me examples of gradual evolution within one species leading to another

i just did

individual no yount we're going in here individual species will be recognized very widely

the trends are visible over time

line ok there's no sources for this by the way

homohabilis started to live on grasslands washich domesticated them to lead to homoctis the homorexis started to cook their foods

change them significantly

so it looks like this is not a gradual change going on it looks like these are punctuated changes

actually

punctuated by wa

by changes for example in the environment

and by changes

i think it became a different theory the theory with homo rectus is that

cooking food apparently started to change something

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

there like i said breeding isn't an exact

no it's the reason breeding is not an hold on the reason breeding is not an exact indication

of specius 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 you can breed that's a pretty sure sign you're in the same species

that's not necessarily true

like lions and tigers have been born

they're not in the cit

m

yes that is true

but those tend to be exceptions and aberrations

not the rain

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 of they can breed like what i'm saying is that there's a debate in but no w wa the this is important i didn't know this wait wait li gers are infertile though so they can't have offspring so that's a pretty important thing to

yeah it's like mules right where it's like a horse donkey and they can't have kids either

yes so that's important

uh huh

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 would with homo ectus and

humans

is there reason to think that if they bred with one another that there couldn't be generational bret would they become infertile

well we know that's not the case because we still have

we still have mo

we still have homeer wctors d n in us

ya

exactly

yeah that's what i was going to say there are people who have more or less erectous d n a r which shows cross breeding definitely happened it's just like neandertal

ok which also so i don't think it's fair to say homoectius was a different species

but some but they're classified as a different but the classification is arbitrary moising donated and i think more it's ob good message we don't i have to explain this to you there's ok there's a big difference is complicated

there's a big difference

the process of speciation is the processr to get a hoole something something

jacks ok give me a second

something changes so i'm meeting up with jackson later tonight so there's just

and i'm not talking to you right now

i'm talking to chat

we fuck here's a process of speciation

okay

where

an organism changes so fundamentally

that it can no longer crossbreed with another

then

now

most of the speciations we find on the fossil record

are punctuated by abrupt geological changes

now there is a degree of variance that the same species can enter into

ok date is thank you for the money but i got a message is loud and clear and i'll check it in a second ok

it's

i'll check it in a second

thank

there's a degree of variance within the same species clearly that's poss 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 we're not a plart of a different species

and like i said i mean even

i i could show you a develop

a de uh devil

a different track

the way that i showed you with tharrretis 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 homoctus is a part of a different species

yes it is

well it's just not i reject that

ok well you can reject it but now you're rejecting the detaiin you ask me why what determines homo erect is 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

there

perception of

each other as viable mates

and

eventually

yeah

yeah that that also has to do with speciation that the way that different species perceive each other as as potential mates on it says here according to nature dot com that it's still debated about whether it is part of

the same species

what is

how more rectus

so whether rectus is the same as

sapiens

whether we're part of the same species or what we're dealing with is sy much every species is debated

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 want to process of speciation

i've defined

right as the process of breeding

ok but that's not the way that it's definite that it's defined

how was it and 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

apreciation is not objecti

okay

cation is a creation of categories these

these categories that we create

absudy right why would why didn't you just say that ok 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 in

organisms

are the result

ofh

gradual changes

now

ok but there's not proof for that

except for the entire fossil recd

no there's no proof for it because the entire falso record

shows different species

that can't breed with each other chris more locks on you know ok let me let me put it this ra

talk to jackson

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

it i don't know what's going on

listen

the process is

what you're talking about

whati 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

ok

can you give me an example of a link between a subspecies and a qualitatively new species

m

so you're saying

uh subspecies b coming a newpece

yes

so the simple fact that there is a gray line between when homo reectus becomes homo sapien and whether or not they're the same

they're 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 homocectus appears

a very similar tming great wear along the fossil in

goes home

truly become

almost eight

where does homohobilis truly become home

corectic

right like the we see gradual changes

between these species

eventually

we call them different species

we should we don't want we not know wait wait

here's the problem though

right

is that you've already agreed that the way in which we're defining species y is arbitrary

okam yes

so a subspecies leading to an entirely new different species

is the question

so a species changing over time becoming something that we eventually

not that we eventually call a different species but becomes a fundamental

a fundamentally different organism

for example homoctus is not that

homorctus

we can make breed with it we can made it woulds

okay sure hom will have bill us

which is before and before

yeah i know

can you give me example of homohabili is slowly becoming erectus though because there you can't

is there gradualism when it comes to homohabilis

hold on and also i want to bring this up

while you're looking for that

because

this is actually very important

um

homoectus theories of punctuated change this is behind a paywall but we can read some of it

fw researers have generally opposed the view that homoctus was the direct answer to later species including homo sapiens

a lewis leaky argued that energetically that homoerect populations in africa overlap with the more advanced holmos sapiens and therefore cannot be ancestoral 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

yy here's

fum punctuated equilibrium

it also predicts that while intermediaries will be rare in the evolution of single species they will be seen among larger groupsrout what

of

stropolific is

is the precursor to modern humans there are no fossils showing a gradual change in gin cranial capacity or body size

of the austrthalpicus so this is what we're looking for

how aslopicic it is the one before habilis i know however there are other species such as sybilius and erectus that show a transition

from

ostrothalpicus to ok 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 ostthopolithechus is already between

is throueh other species habilis and erectus

but with thin austrepolipheicus we see no gradual changes

because we don't have a lot of them the're so that's such and this also calls into question whether we can observe gradual changes

um

in ectus the one you linked is a very shoddy source there was no citations it was like a nine hundred ninety seven schizophrenia website

so i'll send you the a bills one

gradual changes within habilias

mm

okay ya

yeat cranial elies change that kind of thing with an ability

sure where can i find that

i put it in the fact chek

it's the latest one yeah where in the article

um see

it you got to go past the

so the youe go into the fossil

the what

there's a section of the article called the foll

you can even click on it on theline

cad the

the fossil evidence ok

yeah

and what's what am i looking for specifically

so right here i'll talk to you about like the difference

jusys

meenial

discovery of homohobilis fossils

and there's only a few here

apparently so this is a low sample size keep that in mind

yeah well one we're talking about

things that are millions of years old

and where do we see the evolution of the fossils

so over time

we see that the different fossils that we found

have difference like

eranial side

right there's a gradual yeah yeah there's a change but is there a general trend of like bigger or smaller is just

variance

know 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 them

uh like do you want the c c changes or what

just where in the article do they talk about over time

i knew

i'm not finding anything here that's dating the different

species

i s are the different fossils

indicating a general trend

i have to find something

get a chart

is it not in this thing you linked

should have been

no it's not

there are the different fossils are there but there are that there no one's denying different fossils are found but is this when you different fossils exhibit

a general trend of change

wever time

she

it while you look for yours i'm going to

continue looking for mine

ya go for it

okay here here's actually um

than google books haord to find

ok let's look at this

sure

a graduated transition from homerectis to homocapiens 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 homorctus

may have exhibited little or no morphyological 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

ok

so no

you don't you haven't given me any fucking evidence your original one about homo rex probably bullshit

gradual i just there's no gright where's the gradualism you haven't given me anything give me one thing

i just pulled up another ok we'll look at the other one

ok this is

this is the smithsonian natural history

k 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 brainside

als so

can you tell me what i'm looking at right now because

first there's a picture of homo recectus and homo sapiens

i need gradualism within one species

yes 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 what am i looking at

within what species grassally changes climate and changes in brain volume

climate functuation and brain are these punctuated by different

species

so these the so every dot is a different uh

a different

specimen that weve found

so they're different species

there are two different species there yet

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

uh and i think there might be

okay

you need to understand s graduate and yoursearchers are saying and arguing

is that homo rectus experienced throughout the entire duration of its existence as a species

evolutionary stass

that homo sapien did

homoerectus did evolutionary stacees where it did not exhibit morphological changes

over time

and that the changes were punctuated

ok

so this does not tell me i don't know what i'm looking at

wile these human brain size evolved ap

rapidly

um

what human species is this referring to

it because these what species is this talking about

so from the picture year 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 her her bilis and then erectus and then at the end you

but you can see that it's gradual where where does it say that

this is what the articles about

right you can link you just speak where where in the article does it say that i don't see i'm going to type hebills in this article hebills there's no hebills in this article you're talking out of your fucking 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 decrease

no because they're different species

holy shit

they are different species so it's not gradual

i listen i'm going to explain to you the logic behind this

there is one source you gave me

which actually would

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 nineteen ninety five schizophrenic website

di i don't i can't c i don't know what scientists think about this or

what the consensus is on this or what i should fuking 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 homosapiens

ok

and 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 homotis 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 homotus

we can't that's why there's a debate about it yes we can

we can know that debate about it

there's not a debate about because of that because the it's clearly a very distinct

it's not like you find fossils that say oh this is your

this is a half homo erectus maybe modern human we don't find

so it's a little bit more cross breeding but i'm trying to say

is that there're still distinct populations you don't find on the fossil record

people saying

oh this is ah

homo rectus and its lighter stages

slowly changing into modern man you don't find that

the brain size the brain size increase would be one potential trait

that the

morph since a modern man but

it does is that accompanied by all the other traits that distinguish modern man from am reect as we don't know we don't have enough

anything from that source you gave us

so all these trats can be tracked

but you're not tracking them for me you're not giving me anything

that indicates any trial you want me to show you my debt

so you take the all on this debate

i'm going to show you my dick

you gave me what one you provided me with a whopping total

of one source throughout this whole falcking thing

sre

yeah you can think that

which which which actually did

resolve

to give me what i was asking for

and except this is a dog shoul source is the problem this is a dog should source

and even if we accepted this source

it does not prove

what

you were supposed to prove

yeaes 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 erective

that changed overti

right that's what i'm swying

brain size isn't the only other grad what are the other things that gradually change over time and can you give me a source

uh ya here i'll find you a source i think

there's something about dental development

the way that our teeth

started forming differently g hom orectss t started forming give me the evidence

so

humans differ from other primes

growth

shit this one's ine a foot

um

pay will have fine some

still waiting

yeah i'm just making sure i get you

by go

trying to find this other one was like a

can you hurry it up

minute

it it's sounds like if this is a lot harder to find if

you were right

i already found multiple sources there just blind pi

this

like

you're veryased

ok i'll find i'll link you the first one i found

s

it looked really

it

okay

and

uhhuh

the right one that i

they send you the right link once it

the brain

still good

mmhmm

this is about

is no this is about fetal fucking brain development from a child to adulthood

it has nothing to do with morphological changes over time the tim scale is a fucking ah

a child to an adult are you stupid are you fucking dumb

so it's the development right

from from becoming i'm a child to an adult that's not a fucking morphological change

within a species over time that's a child growing into an adult

no 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 paywall can you explain where it clam

o

humans differ from other primates and their significantly lengthened growth period there persistce of a fetal pattern of brain growth after birth

is another important feature of human development

you represented the result of an one point eight million year old

a child

the only well preserved skull of a homoerectus 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 human homortis infant if it was doing what you purported it would

it would find the skull of another homorctous infant

at another period of time 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 his the endro endocranial capacity of

seventy two to eighty four percent of an average adult homoctus

so it doesn't prove what you

you just wasted my time again

so i'm going to do something for you

chance

give me one more source what your last chance to redeem yourself

to prove what you set out

just one

this is your last chance the last chance i'm giving you

be done i have already provided you multiple sources

so you can see the debate you have nothing

no i i claim victory above

okay

who's going to decide who wins and who lost

yeah exactly

chat right

it's not your chat why not

i'm not gona listen to what you're chatt has

so what will you so what will you noticere notbias you're not an unbias

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 come fucking destroyed you

you have nothing

really you've shown me n i don't have to show you shit you're the one who's trying to prove to me gradualism

when the consensus is that the change was punctuated

that's not the consensus really

yeat that's just one theory

ok but it's the but the ok but the truth is is that homoptus was characterized by a period of evolutionary stasis

uh

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

no

oka what are the counter what's forms of evidence to the contrary

the fact that there were gradual changes in the species

time millions we've been proven by what

proven by the fact that they're cran give me one source the crant 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 schizophrenia

nine hdred ninety five website that can't be fucking sourced anywhere and i've never seen that claim reproduced anywhere else

so you lost right

i'm linking it now

you okay this is your final this is the last chance i'm what is the last chance i'm giving you

okay well this this is about the same thing that i i link to you the source that you don't like

the information you liked but the source

this this is from nature this should be

okay

we'll check it out

so this a new set of fosils began to the information that i gave to you in that

right sure that two million years ago a new set of foss mean to appear in the uman fossil record

homertors

they show evidence of increases in both body size and brain size

okay

we'll check it out

i

ok so this is the source from nature

so these are the fossils and these are how they're dated

the found all over here

increases in body size one of the traits commonly associated with homerectis is an increase in body size

so they're talking about home or rectus relative to the species that came before it not within home or relative

there's an increasere body where

well because this is over the period of time that homeor

yeah but where does it say that okay in grease

in hominins increases

like if you look at this table youre it's key homoectius fam

yeah i know but look at the table

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

a

the smallest bodied early homoectis fossils have brain size only slightly larger than earlier hominins

early large bodi so there's a variance of large bodied and small spottied

in the early eve

so there's variance that it's there's no fucking general trend of change

no but you can you can look at averages right

i mean where do you find averages here though that you said this is the source that backs it up so where

look at the fact that homosapiens are now ma

taller on average than damass damass you said you gave me a source that describes gradualism of brain sizes

or homo rectus that backs up that backs up that result doesn't back up anything

you can it's talking about relative to the species before

it scrolled down to increased brain size

yeah

there's that's not nowhere to be found oh right here that's what i'm already looking at though

i already looked at increas brain so i'm literally on it right now

ok wait wait maybe this might back you up

through the history of throughout the evolutionary c homerectus there is substantial evidence

for selection leading towards increased

this means brain size

so that while early members of lineage had a gracial capacity of six ok this is what would help you six hundred eight hundred

the cranial capacity is the most later specimens

are well in excess of one thousand

within the lower range of contemporary humans

without appearing considerably larger in body size than earlier hom erectius

ok so this would back up

what you said originally

the original source

ok so that does source it that does source the original sources claim

that earlier

in its evolutionary history homotus had a cranial capacity of six hundred eight hundred

and later specimens are to be found

with one thousand

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 rectus

and speciation into homosapiens is

is this part of the speciation into homeless savns we don't know

well behavioral things were one of the main reason

couldn't co

because

like we could cross breed right there was

breaeding but we had listen listening behaviorally

it can be speculated that the transition from homoectius to modern human

but what we do know is that on the fossil record

it's an abrupt change from homoectis to modern men

but there are gradual changes right there are gradual changes

but but but the d n a listen there's gradual to there are gradual changes that a 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 homosapiens

so what was one of the things that

it created the speciation

eer all we we don't know all we know it was a b we don't know all we know

is that the change was abrupt accord remember a you remember that there was a

an abrupt correlation with the cooked food right you read that that was a study that you pulled

m

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 then the problem is

technologic ok sure but the problem is speciation which is modern man is an abrupt change from homerect is not a gradual one

but now its true that it's true that we do have bigger brain sizes

compared to the original homotius

smaller post

canine but that's one trait

ok i'll wedued

post canon let's see

the change of be cause you homerectis correspond the change the definition of jaws of the species

again is it talking about

the evolutionary history of homoectus or homoectus compared to before

sot talk about

it's not it's actually not talking about the evolutionary history of homo ectus here or here

it's only talking about that here

so

homoorectus engaged in a diverse and broad diet the food and organisms ingested

yes it doesn't say in the earlier parts of homoectus is existence it eight this and then later part of ight this it's not saying that it doesn't say that

right so it's not it's not it's not the non relevant evidence it's not relevant

oky that's fine

so you've given me nothing

well i've given you the increased brain size which let yeah

right you ya yea 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 homoerectus

there's an increased technological

level

it appears there's a kind of staceis there

and if that's true

that kind of incriminates the evidence of increased cranial capacities

as not indicating a greater trend over the millions of years like their technological

i don't think that's

i don't know if that's true it doesn't say that in this

we on while the earliest tomo maybe it does while the earliest homoctive specimens are found in association with very basic stone tools

um

by five one point five million years ago populations of home erectis were creating a more complex and typologically codified set of tools okay

okay ya i i'll um

grant that

oky

so that does that does

in the karta

yeat

wi some het

what is this guy saying on twitter

ok let me be clear though is that

um hold on

o

let me be clear though

that this doesn't tell us about what led to specienation

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 men

is defined by creating its own environment through labor right

so

at what point homenids began to endanger their own evolution and change

is an open question

but 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 be element more complex than before within the same species

comparable to homoctus

uh no i would grant you that ya

so here it's not really the

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 multiples

well we just know the process of speciation was abrod

furthermore

i wonder how many of these changes with homoectius were punctuated by

um

ecological changes and

geological changes i mean

howy and their tolls are sort of different right they have different brow ridge they have a larger jaw

they have a smaller cranial capacity

a

you know there

scen is less of old

then homo savis

on

that's kind of why we wiped them out

but

we that's that's a theory that's not supported

there are no nanderthalls around other than the fact that

that that doesn't that doesn't justify jumping to fucking these grand speculations about why it happened you do you don't know why

out compete each other that's general well that's just the fucking ideological narrative you're

we're not alkingize

we don't know why neanderthals are no longer here you can you can you can assume what you think is the most likely conclusion based on what you find

to feax your ideology but

the truth is is that we don't know

what do you think is the limiting factor food is generally the larger l

thatac

i think i think

it may very well be possible that neanderthals never did go extinct

oh they aret

well

i

i think that

what we know about archic humans and their relationship to modern humans is very difficult

it's very possible that

neandrerthals intermixed with us to such an extent that as a distinct group they cease to exist

um

it's also possible that

if they were geographically united somehow in that geographic or geological event mostly northern european

and then denizevins were more asian yeah yeah well we don't know you can't you can't jump to these speculative theories they're not scientific

he's and a these are where we do the fox

right so this is what we

consider but you're speculating about theories about how we out computed them or some shit and this is just a

comp that the on scen of the expeculation science about how

species get rid of each other

no that's not how it works species don't get rid of each other

they out compete each other for food and reaper they don't no they don't

competition is mostly interest

interest specific

interspecies competition is basically like non existent

you think species don't compete for food like no you beuse because because for multiple species to exist in the same place

and 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 outbreed 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 decided yet

like who's going to survive within the species

it's not known right or it's not established but that has to do with reproductive capability right like if species don't outbreed each other members of species outgreed each other but as a

for example don't know what you're talking it's so fuckinge falking we can out compete them for reproductive

that's not how it works

that is how no it's not

well that's

that i mean you can say that all you want but

that's a fucking stupid fuck and middle school view of fucking biology

that's fucking stupid

i mean yeah you can say that but i mean doesn't sa

blass

that's fucking darwinian cope dumb as shit

every s is competing with each other

no that's not really how it works

that is kind of how no it's not no it's not different species don't really compete with each other

rivle of the fitest my friend

yeat the thing is is that survival of the fittest is literally a fucking 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 f aristaticly in metaphysics it's all it funning is

you know what fittest means

it literally it what survival the fittest means is survival of

that being that can survive the bestest

yes that's a fucking tautology

whatst means

reproductive fitness

which is about survival yes

so your capacity to reproduce is the whats what survive that's how survival is defined and that's what survival is defined as you fucking dumb ass

and that's why

um neandertals

didn't survive

because they couldn't breathe

better than we could we that we know again that's taught that's a taught that has no causal value whatsoever in explaining why neanderthals aren't to be found anymore because if a if a fucking meteor came and wiped out all neanderthals for whatever reason

yes they can't breed any more is but is their inability to breed a causal reason for them no longer existing or

do they no longer exist because the meteor fuckon wiped them out you would say the latter not the former the former implies

the former implies there was something wrong with the neandrerthal ditch

well that he wasn't as good at

what we needed

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 shit it's fucky not true

so we were more successful

and then we got more chances to breathe

no

that's exactly how know it's successful that's completely fucking bullshit

more successful how

because a meteor didn't because a meteor didn't happen to strike us that's a stupid fucking way of looking at it

we were better at

we weren't necessarily better at anything there's room for contingency and randomness in this process doesn't fucking 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 shock 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 craft 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 survive sometimes a shark just comes and kills the other guy

doesn't mean you're better it just means you're lucky just means you're lucky it doesn't mean you're better

there was no mass extinction event w the endertyp

could 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 kind of way

they had a smaller

do see 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 fucking matter because it's based on insulation of cold

and not based on lif

anything relating to is so called intelligence so n matter right

yeah brain size matters at a larger scale but at a smaller scale there 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 hu within two humans right like uh

the one who has a big

name is necessary

unless it's by like

a massive degree yeah the it's speculated that the reasons for neanderthals becoming extinct was environmental we still don't know what happened to neanthals they could have just

mixed with us to such an extent that they no longer were distinct

there's also like factors about

you know their ability to get resources in that's again again again i'm sick of your fucking minecraft view of history it annoying a right like they were adapted to different

and eventually the climate changed so that we were more

like that

yh but that's extremely improbable because both humans and neanderthals were stone

were

it's people that

migrated they moved around a lot

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 known is not a fucking animal

man is nothing but an animal

man is not a fucking 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 how that they are animals

do you speak a lot of other animal languages

when has an animal ever expressed any sort when is an ok give me can you give me proof of an animal being able to make the concept of animal

intelligence is in any kind of way

shut the fuck up

is there any type of behavioor exhibited by an animal that expresses

and animal's ability to make the concept of animality intelligible

what do you mean by the concept of animal 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 fucking toy

dinosaur i've seen it my fucking with my fucking bare

i've seen with my own fucking two eyes

so it they can't even really distinguish an animal even even sensibly from a fucking

animate object

oftentimes

i mean give it enough time it'll be able to tell if it's alive or not

no

i've seen it with my own eyes i've given it plenty of time to

eving dogs can't tell what is alive

dogs even if they could based on like hearing their heartbaaten shit

they still have no concept of what an animal is

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 the they could have

that that ability there's no reason to think that anymore you you know what's going on inside of iraq

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 aroq is thinking you just don't know it

that could be true

ok anything else

like that could be true you don't have evidence against that it's not like it is a fuking sofistry look at this total fucking sofistry do you have anything else

why would we ever entertain the idea of iraq having mental thoughts

all we know is that the are 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 i we're just animals

ok that's your cope

anything else

humans are nothing but animals ok what animals have history what animals have history do any animals have history

all animals have hisy sure what's the history of dogs h sorry dogs are related to humans they don't have history

what's what's the history of

a tortoise

you know what history is by the way his 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 do you think that it would be reasonable to like even entertain the idea of tortoises having 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

gupes have history

or do bees do the same shit they've always fucked done because they're bees know what you mean by history bees aor no bees are definitely different

they do the same shit they've always done based on their the constitution of their organism

not

no bk how are they different across time how are bees exhibiting historical changes that you can always be

what i want i one point these 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 don't exist

they only have history when they start to exist so where's their history

snce that's their history

where are the be 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 depends depends on what you mean

the 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

change

i'm asking you if bees have history do they have history or do they do the same shit

change over time is this

no it's not

because

bees are completely determined

by their organism and by their environment

or humans

no they're not

because

in any given five thousand fucking 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 is 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 fuck out of here you took the bg

i took that falking out of your life get the fuck out of my place personality

i've never talked to anyone more stupid than that in my fucking life ok we're going to shift years to this

finally cover the idiot dumb ass swamp communist guy

because we didn't even get a chance to cover that

needless to say

that was a big fucking waste of time

so i'm going to pee and we're going to go ahead and cover this i'll be right back

going to go ahead and i'm going to eat with you guys we're going to co

oh my god

you have no idea how hungry i am

how much have been waiting to eat this

oh my foking god

oh

ater

oh man that guy was fuking keeping me

waiting so long

mm

what did jackson say

there was something about dinner with jimmy dore

i fucked up i missed it you know

oll god

um

no i've had

i've had dinner with jimmy door before

i've had to dinner with them before

so it's not it's sucks a lot but it's not like the end of the world you know

i don't care what cox soted to say about hagel

i'm sick of talking to british people about agle i get it you guys don't understand it whatever

i'm just sick of having to faking

argue with them about it you either get it or you don't

yy

the british just have an issue with hagel they got it some kind of problem with him

and what can i say

it not my problem

i'm sick of arguing with them about it

i'm ready to move on

i mean i'm fine with them hating hagel

i'm fine with that

just go ahead and

say hegels the charlottesan is me go ahead say what you want

this shit works for me

rotsky is in the c p s a we're going to kick them all out

ok

mm

u k trotskys are the worst people on earth

f c logan

i forgot about that guy i forgot he existed

g p i texas

are you going pesso

am i going

yeah

yeah i'll go one ow

wednesday march fifteenth

p

right

all right i'm doing you in

i need like some sugar i need like a form of sugar or some kind of like

to raise my blood plusg

pressure some shit like that

i'llso have to charge my phone

we're going to get into this dumb fox

finally

watermelon sugar

mmhm

what a mave and sugar

i

what a piece of shit

song

you guys know what jamba juices

have you ever heard of that jamba juice

sounds pretty satanic to me

ramble juice

p a ne of sugar

ill just get this one

ow fuck it has soil millk

why does it have to have soy milk

god for

can't win

in this city you know there's always a fucking tradeof

there's always this fucking trade off

it's everything was fine but it had fucking soy milk in

i

paps

everything's too far to deliver

bay

i just need way protein and i get some way protein

i should literally just go to jackson's house and fucky maikon

i might actually do that

is he alive right now is jackson alive right now

i might actually just come over and make protein

it like little we cannot find anything

he's not alive

what

it's a guy i can wait i can wait for both

ll he's live in five minutes

oh

let mey actually call

callm give me secd before i cover this

i'm going to go to jackson's after this stream i'm going to go charge my phone right now

and then after we're done with this stream i'm jus going to go to jackson's and i'll be on his stream too

to make protein

on once a

right so this guy is a dumbass

and we know that

we know he's a dumb ass anything else that i should know yes

here's a thread on ly senco that no one asked for let me give you the i already give you the context

he stupped tweeting

some shit i said and by the way guys

member i told you don't be mean to esha you guys were kind of mean to her i'm going to be honest

remember when i debated ahow about decolonization and shit

excuse me is this chad dead

m is

i don't know what to say

i don't know to say

i finally

it's going in member member asha guys you guys were kind of mean to her i want to be honest

because listen

we may disagree with her about that shit

but at least she's pro li's ankle

you know the they actually defend licenco

so these are allies ok these are allies

we got we got to stop trusting the science let me

ges

this whole vaccine sht which is dividing

the left in creating a political realignment

is literally about

whether we unquestionably

unquestioningly

obey

the scientific establishment

and

redeeming lysenco is about proving that these

experts who have replaced religion with the god of science are full of fucking shit dont know what the fuck they're talking about

i'm going to debunk everything is dom as guy said

ay

well not give me a second

ok

leust's go

here's a thrond they sancle that no one asked for

lysanko is a mem ok first all this guy's a so called maoist and that you got to keep that in mind because they're maoist i'm going to expose them for being a trotskyist

you understand

so let's continue

masenko was a mem but he was basically a living fable of why it's important to reject the idealism of an appeal to authority

do hold on what's fucking ironic about this is that the entire basis

for this dumb ass

to talk about an appeal to to duanta di bunc lsenko

is because he's appealing to an authority he's appealing to the authority of the scientific establishment

because this is a person who was fundamentally convinced that i some the scientific establishment cannot be wrong and always has to be right

right that's basically what he's saying

why else

what is he signaling here like

with this is like a hard core maoist right

why are you so attached to the scientific establishment though

what does it have to do with anything like why what is it because again these are not

what they claim

themselves to be you know

um

like if you're such a hard coremoist wouldn't you be pro lyicenco wouldn't you at least be more open to lyicenco being correct

and i'm going to philosophically explain to you why his dumbfuk doesn't know anything about the distinction between materialism and idealism either

was because some of his work was actually really good notably he discovered vertalization vernalization is essentially a technique where you freeze or chill germinating seedlings

cause them to flower faster

he did it

then behave like spring reat and made of a soviet star

when the famine hit the government was returned to the agricultuan

tom said he had a planed to it they decided to make sense to rely on him after all his theus his superme press right

but this is not what fucking happened

lysenko didn't

claim he was going to end the famine the famine ended well before they turned to lsenko so

this is just factually wrong

vertalization had been proven in practice but they single regarded vertalization as part of a larger thesis

which she argues as part of an ideological battle in the sciences been thela markans

who represented by the way the russian

uh tradition

of agronomy and biology

specifically led by ivan mchurin

and neo darwines

um

keep that in mind

lysenko was distorting what materialism even meant

there is an objective reality independent of our minds

no

mm

well first of all that's not

what

that is not what the

idealism that's not what the distinction between idealism and materialism

arrests upon

that subjectivism there's subjective idealism and there's also objective idealism so this is just fucking illiterate this person's

can you please clip this and put it on twitter something this person is fucking illiterate everything they're saying they're pulling out of their ass

um no

there's subjective idealism is oubjective idealism what makes something idealist or materialist is altermately about where it falls as far as the dialectic of content and form

if you believe that form

as its last say

you're an idealist

you believe that content has its last say you're a materialist and it is literally that simple

idealists believe

that reality is premised

by ideas and forms

now whether those ideas or forms exist independently of our mind

um subjectively is uh

not essential to the distinction whatsoever

continuing

instead he claimed that materialism meant our nature was the product of external stimuli and we passed it along as hedi there is like

ten layers of

mental

i can't say that word

mental uh um

the trouble i'm finding with this tweet

ok and there's just

there's a lot to unpack here there's actually a lot

it's not like there's one thing or two there's actually quite a lot so let's begin

yah

birstley

eight

this

even if we were to accept

that this was lysenko's claim

which is a really bizarre

um

thing to say like this is just a bizarre

recap of lyicenco

it's very bizarre

but let's just accept that this is what lysenko claims lysenko is just some guy who claims this right

that our nature is the product

of external stimuli

and we passed it along as hereditary traits

you guys see a problem here

im

in no way does this contradict

the view

of an objective reality independently of our minds

our nature being the product of external stimuli

has nothing to do

with whether it exists oubjectively outside of our minds or not

and the fact that i have to break that down is really sad

i mean it's just sad

that's just very sad i mean this is just

unbelievably fucking stupid this can you as please

clip this whole thing and post it on twitter

host this whole fucking thing i'm going to do on twitter write this segment

i want this guy to see it i want him to see it right

this is just fucking stupid

furthermore

um

the second problem with this is that it is trying to ground

um

the content of scientific discovery along the philosophical or as lysenco and soviet philosophers or sorry ideologist would put it

the metaphysical distinction between materialism and idealism but actually that's immaterial

m

lysenka wasn't doing what he was doing

because of the philosophical debate between materialism and idealism

he was doing what he was doing

because the practical results of his work

we're contradicting

the the established dogma

of the neodoonus

lysenco explained

the commitment of the neo darwinists to their dogma in terms of their commitment

to a unscientific metaphysics

that does not mean

lyicenko was premising

his work

along the lines of defining what materialism was it wasn't about

how do i define materialism

for lysenco it was about

what is the truth

and materialism is just a means to that end

ac sleely

uh

so he never s so

i mean fourth i think is weorre four layers of stupidity on this

licenco never claimed that materialism meant our nature was the product of external stimuli because licenco was not a philosopher

um

as far as what materialism was concerned where it has any relevance in this whatsoever

lysenko viewed the idea of jens

as a kind of

idealist metaphysics according to which

there are these

uncontaminated lines of succession

that are the true essence of the material organism so for lysenco being a materialist meant recognizing

that the material reality of the organism

had a determinant a determinating role in the in

traits of the organism

right

so there you go with the distinction between materialism and idealism that's that's even relevant here

now finally this is the fifth layer of stupidity i told you there's a lot to unpack here

um

never did lysenco resort to any type of environmental determinism whatsoever

lysenco was very well aware that organisms

have a

an internal biological reality that is clearly

different from the external nature

lysenco did not reject microbiology

um

and in no way did he ever claim that an organism is reducible to external stimuli

that's just a

like

you the way he words us you'd think this is like lysenko's own words it's not it's his words he talks out of his ass he's a dumb ass he doesn't know a fucking thing

about any of the subjects he's trying to touch upon

um

actually lysenko was saying that our nature is a dialectic interaction

between the inner structure of our biological a

constitution

and

the environs of the organism

as a holistic totality

lysenka is based and that's not even the main thing it's really not even about external stimuli or the environment

as much it is about the sight of determination

whll i cinkled the siighte of determination

was at the level of the organism

for the neodarwinist the site of determination is at the level of something called a gene

so it's not even about the issue of of

heredity versus environment it's mainly about

the site of the determination of organisms

um

whether they should be whether organisms should be seen as the and to quote lysenco quoting his opponents the nutritive soil

of a gene

or whether genes are part of the whole organism as a holistic

a totality

um

let's continue

now can an environmental stimuli have an effect on reproduction absolutely

any ging or died to drrag you skin can affect our baby come out

but it cannot

affect the baby's heridity

a person with fetal alcohol syndrome can't pass it on to their kids

so is this guy made basically saying like the thing where it's like

if you cut off a rat's tail

ah the offspring is still going to have a tail

ah licenco debunked licenco owned

this guy has independently

debunked lysenco just using his own reasoning

he used his own reasoning to debunk lysenco at round of applause everybody

he used the rat tail argument absolutely fucky and brilliant

brilliant

brilliance brilliance

really except except the only problem is that

lysenco never said that the process of heredity

is a one to one reflection of

the parents

m and all the experiences a parent has are

inherited

what lysinka was more broadly saying

is that

like

as lemarcqe said you can inherit acquired characteristics now

which acquired characteristics can be inherited

is going to be something specific

and how

characteristics are acquired in the relevant sense in the first place it's also going to be more specific

it has to do with the induction of

envi traumas physical traumas that lead to a change in the constitution of the organism

very specific things

we're talking about we're not talking about

if you cut off someone's limbs the baby's still going to have a limb

yes

we agree that

um

limbs grow out because of underlying biological processes within an organism

processes that are still reproduced

and inherited

it's just that for licencle those processes are in imperiled

they can change those processes can change

in non random ways in ways that

have to do with

characteristics acquired by the organism

and over generations

or above all lysentco wanted to have a dialectical view of how organisms work

as opposed to the kind of one sided materialism

of the geneticis according to which

an organism is just the result of genes and that you know genes

are the fixed thing and then we just

and that they changed randomly but

we're just the product of genes right genes are a dead

thing that don't interact with

the organism in any kind of way in a determined in a way that's decisive in the determinate sense

so ya

a person with fetal alcohol symptoms can't pass on their kids ok

no one saying that the underlying

like lys oks all i have to say is licencle didn't deny microbiology it's that simple

we have limbs

because

our bodies work in such a way the cells work cellular reproduction works in such a way

that is conducive to the generation

of limbs

okay

but that process can be altered that process can be altered now are you going to alter that process by cutting off your limb

uh

generationally no

of course not but that has nothing to do with anything lysenko was saying

but this is basically what lasengle said could happen

and it's what he thought had improved with vernalization

because he manipulated the plant's reproduction

they'd altered its heredity

so this guy was right about the wrong reason

no it's not lysenko didn't say that could happen

i mean can you give me one example where he argues that he doesn't say

that

any old change

to

he didn't say every environmental stimuli

can be passed on generationally

you just said

that

the inner constitution of the organism

is a living constitution

it can change

it's not and change in a non random way to

i mean i think you need to actually just read lysenkle himself

and it just speaks for itself what he actually fucking said

he did not say this no he didn't

but relying on thy senkle and signing his theories off as proven relying on the source

relying on him as the source of objective truth and allying sunce to scientific opponents

the state had engaged in is idealism

again objective realityists outside the minds of individuals like lysentcle

it's actually too bad that's not relevant

whatsoever that this is not anything this has nothing to do with anything relating to anything about the subject matter

um

no one merely relied on y senko because he said it was true he people relied on my senko because despite all the

things like uncle was proving in the soviet sciences

despite all the headway he was making

his opponents were still bitterly

becoming but heard about it basically

and dogmatically actually trying to silence lysencle

now why is it that

his scientific opponents were silenced

we can actually get into

so i'm going to go right here

here we go

game

la single pride in nineteen thirty six never contrived for power

but in thirty six he a rose against the geneticist and they rose against him also

even trying to involve the central committee

when vavilov was the pet of the party

so the geneticists were the ones trying to silence lysenco first

and this is something you don't learn right

this was due exclusively to the licenco group getting practical results and needing funding for practical tools

coming up against the genetic or vavelov group

that was trying to divert funding to their side for theoretical research

vavlov himself having written a huge amount

of literature

that no one in one lifetime could have read

with not one thing in there being put to practical use

vabilov was criticized by the party in the late twenties for doing this before lysenco

collecting seeds and doing nothing with them

so these were metaphysicians they were sitting around speculating about schit

as lysingo said they care more about flies than human beings

and lysenco and his group were trying to get practical results to feed people right

you have to understand that these scientists in this scientific establishment

they were anti humanists they just

wanted to sit around and be metaphysicians arrogantly with their nose in the fucking air

and they didn't want practical results n no no we need eat people need a fucking eat before anything right

so you have to understand this is what a deeply rooted sociological

difference these

the urbanized scientists these

educated people

who represented the westernized elite

of russia

it is also known that some of the samples vavlov paid for in soviet gold

and brought back were samples

that the czar's russians sold to foreigners

from homvvel i've got these new samples

he was criticized for this so what did he do

some of the samples he paid for in soviet gold and brought back were the ones the russians sold to foreigners

and he claimed there were new samples what a fucking liar

he was criticized for this but not jailed or put on trial

this was never disputed not even in nine hundred forty eight

it was also well known in the u s asar lysenco's roup had results the geneticis had nothing but theories

ok

the

n k vd expos we tried to show is just what the genetics has given us

but here's another bombshell

first off

yeah of

you're of issarsia

the discussion here is about securing the further development geneticis from the point of view of the development of securing

development of genetics into a service of gobls

only this w make it possible to convert such a science to the highest stage

which at the moment is its primise sages of development

sake of clarity we repeat that darwinism is not against genetics

darwinism is for genetics darwinism is not against genetics but darwinism is against fascist distortion of genetics

ok

these are from the horses mouth

so this is what the t d l n k v d expos

which was supposedly about

silencing these opponents stead

and it clearly doesn't say anything about

i mean

this is lysenko's own journal now i've shit on genetics

to propent propagandize the truth of lsenko

but the truth is that it doesn't even look like lyicenco rejected genetics licentco did not reject genetics ok

um

that's actually very important to understand he didn't reject

genetics

process of scienns of heredity as he saw it

um

i should have mentioned that earlier i don't i think i forgot that or something i

because i've said that before single din't even reject genetics

it's just that

a gene is a metaphysical concept

right

a for the bombshell during kruschov's time single proposeed that the funds allotted for development on the vergin soil were used

in the traditional russian regions toward fertilization of soil and thus increase of proc

crop production

gkrusov the dumb ass fucked that up

zorros medvedev

in his scathing book of bulshit

wrote that geneticis began an open struggle against lsenko

and they had written about three hundred letters against him

there is no mention in medvedev's book about lysenko's being against krushov's adventures

the virgin soil

um

the thing is is that there's also i think this is from grover fur who shows

lyicenco

did not

spear had a campaign to persecute

uh anyone

lysenco actually petitioned and campaigned and i can't find the source for this but i'm willing to bet everything on it

for the release of the jailed scientific opponents were jailed for other reasons actually

um

so blaming lysenco for this is a another fucking myth of history

let's continue finally there's only two more tweets for this thank god we don't have to fucking spend too much time a his dumb ass his prove proven unproven theories we're only part of an interconnected system

because he said so

so is this guy basically saying that the u s s r committed an idealism because they just listened to lysenko uncritically well why did they listen to him did they elevate lysenko to some status of divinity

according to which his word is like divine i mean like what are you saying this you just got even know he's fucking talking about

not because as much a be empirically observed in nature

the problem

is that it had been observed

and that is why funds were being directed toward lysenko and his group

over the geneticists who were not producing results while lysenco was

and the consequence was state pseudoscience

um

this is why idealism so this is what this guy saying

everything stephen pinker and the scientific establishment says is correct

i'm just going to use um

heavy sounding marxist language

to justify it

listen the reason why we must support vaccine mandates is that

opposition to vaccine mandates is

idealist

and that the correct dialectical position would it's just

you know this is like sucking someone's cock

and like

coping about the fact that you're doing that by saying like

as you can see i am merely am

i am merely exploring the cock with my mouth and

attempting to ref i am destroying the

um

cock coulocks the germs on the cock by cleaning them off straight off

the cockkulacks are being

completely wiped off were liquidating the cock cokulocks

like this is like this is like

this is like if you suck jeff basil's dick or some fucking billionaire

and you explained that it was class warfare

because

your youre um

you're liquidating the penis cooloks who are

a

who are germinating on jeff basil's dick

i mean this is you're just using language

to

justify a position that has nothing to do

with the actual essence behind that apparent language i mean

the actual essence of the position that gives rise to this language

is not being reproduced in the way you're using it

ok

m

this is why idealism and ephorism are bad and centralism must be democratic

and the chairmans of

quotations of manseitange which say always wear your mask

indoors

and

um

make sure to get your ninth booster shot of pfizer

the quotations of chairman monte tong which say clearly

vote for biden act decisively

it is her turn

with her twenty sixteen

me like what a what am i fucking reading here you know

he hasn't proven its pseudo science he hasn't proven he knows what idealism is

he doesn't know what idealism is he's just talking out of his ass

leadership is a practical function

not a privilege or a position of correctness

wile so brave

on

fox this is sosi

we've found the sixth head guys this is the sixth

the sixth head

this is the sixth head of marxism guys it

on unfucking belio we just found the sixth head

he's basically saying

guys we shouldn't just listen to people uncritically

yeah but i mean that assumes that's why liicencle rose to prominence and why his ideas became widespread and accepted

that's what you have to prove

that's what you haven't proven

he's saying ok guys listen

i'm going to just agree with what they said about lysanco but i'm going to explain why it's a problem

this is a vulgar authorities no

and this is a maoist

let melet me let me understand the maowists right

so we're revolutionary in the sense that like you know

we want to terrorize majority of americans we want to

destroy families and destroy everything and

um do all that kind of demoniac shit and whatever

but then when it comes to the scientific establishment guys i meanplece we have to cope as much as we can

by b

listen okay okay you're a liberal too i'm a liberal but winki wink we're liberals we're just going to like communicate in mouist language so like

the revolutionary action of voting for hillary is like

the

it's like you're a fucking liberal

who's coping about

your liberal commitments

through maoist language

he's like saying listen guys we should submit

to what the authorities are saying yes stevehn pinker

yes bill gates yes scientific establishment yes research institutions

funded by

american shadow billionaires yes yes yes

submit to them but we will close we're going to i'm going to make it seem like the reason war the reason why i'm submitting to the scientific

consensus isn't because

it's convenient

isn't because i'm a liberal

isn't because i'm just submitting to authority without thinking critically isn't because i'm scared to accept the fact that the

institutional establishment is completely false which would lead to scary jimmy dore anti vaxar type of

thinking and like you know you know like if i if i start to question the scientific establishment it's like all sorts of kooky theories might be true and that just made me really uncomfortable

no that's not why

the reason is because of maoist theory and marxism and dialectical theory and we are independent guys were independent

we're truly independent it's not because we're submitting to the authorities it's not because we're liberals it's because of our the independent results

the contrived by the sixth head of marxism swamp communist

of the truth of marxism leninism maoism

chairman gonzalo vindicated yet again

ok so this dumb fougt

is ptffod

and i want you to clip that entire segment and post it on twitter

so i could retweet it and tweet it at him because i want that fuker to see it

you know

i want that falker to see it

ah and make sure he knows it's personal right

becuse i hate that i genuinely hate swamp communist more than

ninety percent of people on twitter

he is literally a dumbss

people take him seriously i don't know why he doesn't know anything about anything he says

he literally doesn't know shit about any of the words

he uses

talks out of his eyes

he's just a fucking liberal and nothing more

bi guys so here's the thing

is that

um i'm gonna send you

to jackson

uh yes i'm going to send you to jackson

and then i'm gonna go to jackson's

because i need protein

which he has and i'm going to be on the jackson's thing

do i hate him more than roderick day onironically yes i sighed i know there's a dispute between roderick day and swamp communist

i sided with roderick day in that dispute by the way

so i'm going to be on jackson's stream guys

i'll be there in like i

like ten minutes or something i don't know

'm go to up

let's do some laundry for a second then i'm going to head over