Interesting, I was missing a reference to what I would call "non intended" evolution due to the limited information that can be transmitted by genes (the Belyaev experiments on foxes are a nice example for that). For example the grey colour of the rats may very well be (I don't know, it is just a thought, not a hypothesis) a simple byproduct of some other trait that actually can be considered adaptive.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
"If we can't explain what a feature is for, we have no justification for claiming it is for anything" - logical fallacy.
"If we can't explain what the universe is for, we have no justification for claiming it is for anything" - ?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I know this is quite a bit "over your head". I did not say at all that there may or may not be a purpouse. I merely stated that some things are interlinked (and there is proof for that) and that this was not addressed in the video.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
I wasn't really responding to your specific comment - just noting a funny paradox in the midst of Bret's analysis that only works as a paradox via a ridiculously inflated analogy.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Just looked into the guy a little further and found that he decided to "publish [his research?] outside of mainstream media" which, anyone correct me if I am wrong, means he is not under scrutiny by the scientific peer review process.
That would make the the work of this man way less credible, especially as he refers to scientists that are specalists in the field but apparently does not give them opportunity to review his findings.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Trevicahn (Short Spike)
Ah, very true. Its not hard to publish research for scientic review. The only reason you wouldn't would be to stop people from tearing you apart.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
People deliberately do this to show off to their "fanboys" ("anti" climate change promotors and sites are notorious for this), I don't know whether or not this is true in this case. Considering the poster, it wouldn't surprise me if this guy has some sort of religious agenda, I don't know, though, and will not dig deeper as I lost interest in his research after finding out about his publishing strategy.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
He's a fucking atheist progressive - why don't you actually look into him instead of making a bunch of ignorant assumptions based solely on the poster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I stopped looking into it because of the reasons I gave above. And of course I have my suspicions about you (as you have about me) and am prejudiced (as most of your posts fit your bias or agenda). At least I admit it.
So he's an atheist? LOL Still I find his "research" not credible if he does not publish it in the proper media.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
I have absolutely no suspicions about you whatsoever DaftCunt. That's weird paranoid talk as far as I'm concerned. I mean, you did make a big stink about leaving the site, and while you were gone there was this "Super Friends" new member who showed up calling everyone, especially me, a pedophile and spamming the site with member-specific trolls. By the time you got back, they were banned. So you missed the Pokaroo, and for that I'm truly sorry. But maybe if you didn't stop in your tracks every time you encounter something that challenges your wordview and instead invoke the classic "must be the devil's work" fear response of the primitively religious you'd be a happier person.
But naw man you're an open book to me - there just isn't any mystery there. LOL I understand you as well as Robert California understands Dwight Schrute.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I would not have been interested in calling you a pedophile, I have no indications you are. You make me leaving about you, which shows quite a lot. Rest assured it wasn't, I don't take people like you very seriously.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
I was simply updating you on what you missed while you were away. The rest is you. But no I think the general consensus is that it was another return of the Berg.
Comments
(Short Spike)
Huh. How interesting. I enjoyed this.
(Old Spike)
Interesting, I was missing a reference to what I would call "non intended" evolution due to the limited information that can be transmitted by genes (the Belyaev experiments on foxes are a nice example for that). For example the grey colour of the rats may very well be (I don't know, it is just a thought, not a hypothesis) a simple byproduct of some other trait that actually can be considered adaptive.
(Old Spike)
"If we can't explain what a feature is for, we have no justification for claiming it is for anything" - logical fallacy.
"If we can't explain what the universe is for, we have no justification for claiming it is for anything" - ?
(Old Spike)
I know this is quite a bit "over your head". I did not say at all that there may or may not be a purpouse. I merely stated that some things are interlinked (and there is proof for that) and that this was not addressed in the video.
(Old Spike)
I wasn't really responding to your specific comment - just noting a funny paradox in the midst of Bret's analysis that only works as a paradox via a ridiculously inflated analogy.
(Old Spike)
Just looked into the guy a little further and found that he decided to "publish [his research?] outside of mainstream media" which, anyone correct me if I am wrong, means he is not under scrutiny by the scientific peer review process.
That would make the the work of this man way less credible, especially as he refers to scientists that are specalists in the field but apparently does not give them opportunity to review his findings.
(Short Spike)
Ah, very true. Its not hard to publish research for scientic review. The only reason you wouldn't would be to stop people from tearing you apart.
(Old Spike)
People deliberately do this to show off to their "fanboys" ("anti" climate change promotors and sites are notorious for this), I don't know whether or not this is true in this case. Considering the poster, it wouldn't surprise me if this guy has some sort of religious agenda, I don't know, though, and will not dig deeper as I lost interest in his research after finding out about his publishing strategy.
(Old Spike)
He's a fucking atheist progressive - why don't you actually look into him instead of making a bunch of ignorant assumptions based solely on the poster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein
(Old Spike)
I stopped looking into it because of the reasons I gave above. And of course I have my suspicions about you (as you have about me) and am prejudiced (as most of your posts fit your bias or agenda). At least I admit it.
So he's an atheist? LOL Still I find his "research" not credible if he does not publish it in the proper media.
(Old Spike)
I have absolutely no suspicions about you whatsoever DaftCunt. That's weird paranoid talk as far as I'm concerned. I mean, you did make a big stink about leaving the site, and while you were gone there was this "Super Friends" new member who showed up calling everyone, especially me, a pedophile and spamming the site with member-specific trolls. By the time you got back, they were banned. So you missed the Pokaroo, and for that I'm truly sorry. But maybe if you didn't stop in your tracks every time you encounter something that challenges your wordview and instead invoke the classic "must be the devil's work" fear response of the primitively religious you'd be a happier person.
But naw man you're an open book to me - there just isn't any mystery there. LOL I understand you as well as Robert California understands Dwight Schrute.
(Old Spike)
I would not have been interested in calling you a pedophile, I have no indications you are. You make me leaving about you, which shows quite a lot. Rest assured it wasn't, I don't take people like you very seriously.
(Old Spike)
I was simply updating you on what you missed while you were away. The rest is you. But no I think the general consensus is that it was another return of the Berg.