Think you know Phenotypes?

Comments

danmanjones's picture

So is Dawkins trying to be relevant again?

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
robbby1234's picture

Fuck this, couldn't add the beaver pic I wanted to. Fuck.

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

The whole debate was posted before, why now post a part of it? 

 

It is a bit of a shame that actual scientists waste their time debating people that decided to take their "research" out of the scientific circle and decided to "publish" their "revelations" in "alternative" media. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Crazier things are done for ego. Look at Drumpfftfpf.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Why do you make shit up? Instead why don't you just comment on their discussion? Like genuinely comment? The full debate was posted in the comment section of another post and you didn't really comment on it there either. How come? You claim to love science but every time you're presented with a very interesting mainstream science that you can't run away from you fail to address it at all. I don't think you like science very much at all. I think science is just a vehicle for your tribalism. I think that you misrepresent what someone who actually cares about science is like and that you do this to protect a rigid ideological position. Is there nothing about their discussion that you find interesting at all?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

 

I didn't watch either. I tried but I have to be in a special mood to listen to Dawkins' voice. Sorry ;)

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

What "shit" did I make up?

 

"Is there nothing about their discussion that you find interesting at all?"

 

I did not say that. For the topic at hand it is pretty much irrelevant what I personally think or find interesting. Unlike the two debaters I am not a biologist. 

 

I just can't take "researchers" very seriously that write books in lieu of scientific papers* or publish via "alternative" routes (as Weinstein decided to to) OUTSIDE the relevant scientific journals, thus avoiding peer review. People with agendas, a specific bias or a target group do this, not reknown scientists.

 

* for example suspicious observers wrote a book on "whatever climate scientists ignored but is oh so important" rather than publishing a paper for peer review, you posted his promo videos on that. When I challenged him for quotes from the scientific papers he mentioned in these videos and asked him why he did not publish a paper, he shrugged it off by saying buy the book, "many scientists" look forward to reading it. LOL

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down