When he gave his first word-salad, I was actually concerned that he didn't include "paradigm." Word salad needs "paradigm." It's like the lettuce in the salad. Fortunately, he included it later, but he did have me worried there for a while.
Babe I'm begging you to stop perpetuating the myth of Dunning-Kruger, a thoroughly debunked idea statistically and through lack of replication with proper statistical controls.
That's not always true. Like for example dogs can't understand most what we tell them and we can make them understand all sorts of things. Like no matter how many barks and growls we make, we cannot make the dog to understand the concept of planets. Sometimes we just have to use a little bit more mature language to explain things, like planets are massive objects in space, often far larger than the earth. Now for someone in 1000 years ago, even most humans couldn't understand this statement. Object was probably word that wasn't invented yet, there was no concept of space, at least outside philosophers and astronomers. And especially layman had no concept of the size of earth. So someone travelling from year 2000 to 1000 couldn't make much sense of anything, without sounding crazy. "So you're telling me there are human made tools that use lightning and make paintings appear? What drugs are you on?" But saying all that, I do think most of the stuff Jordan Peterson is saying is just word salad. He light be well read person but the ego is getting to him at the same time he's getting older. But as time and time again is proven, most people start lacking understanding to new ideas after their life worked so well to generate wealth with certain ideology, so they have to grasp straws in order to defend their solutions.
Synapsis: Caller: The word gene was once used as a singular noun for an unknown single unit of something that would control a single characteristic that is always passed down from generation to generation. Reality: science has not used the word gene like that for 80 years, because DNA sequences are what we discovered that fit the bill for the old definition, even though we know that single sequences don't usually express traits on their own, or don't necessarily express in every generation etc. Caller: So genes aren't real, because only the original definition counts. Planet Peterson and friends: what is your point and why does it matter?
Fact: Science isn't an entity. It doesn't "do", "use", or "think", as it is a word to define a set of descriptors for a concept we called "science". [...]
@@johns1625 Nah, as the title of the post claims, more likely the result of watching too many videos from JP, then becoming way too enamored with the smell of his own metaphysical farts.
Caller: the original definition of "atom" is a particle of an element that can't be divided futher. Fact: Atoms can be divided into protons and nutrons. Conclusion: Atoms aren't real🤯!
"Nature is constantly undergoing a dialectical process" This sentence literally means nothing. What, nature is having a debate? I really don't think he knows the definitions of the words he is saying. What became most apparent after reviewing all of the arguments is the guests ego. And need to feel like he has forbidden knowledge.
that "forbidden knowledge" part is so on point. Many of these clowns hear professors speak or they try to read an in depth scientific paper on genetics and can't understand it, so instead of researching what they don't understand, they try to philosophize about it. But if you live in the 21st century and still don't understand what DNA does in the body, then a trip back to school is required for the guest.
There is a sub-species of mildly educated Peterson bros who dazzle the plebs around them with their verbiage but fall flat when confronting actual subject matter experts
Peterson's (Jordan, that is) has an absurd understanding of the collective unconscious. It isn't some supernatural thing. It's about shared stories and values.
@RandyHurness It wasn't an accusation. The majority of the guys statements were incoherent. His concepts neither fit scientific or philosophical methodologies.... whichbis commonly called.... word salad
@@gryph01 In order to justify that he actually did engage in word salad, you would need to actually justify a specific example of this. Simply repeating the assertion over again isn't a justification of the accusation. Nor is it an argument.
Where do you find these people? It’s like he overheard someone talking about biology in another room 10 years ago, read a thesaurus and a book of poetry, and now he’s a confident expert.
23:15 And this is where you can tell he stopped reading about 1% through a lay description of punctuated equilibrium or is cheating off of someone who did.
11:49 only this far in but feels like his argument is a weird amalgamation of " Language is inexact and you can't prove causality with 100% certainty therefore evolution is false" 17:01 da fuq is an "empiricist Anglo-Saxon method" 🙄
It's like you're in my head. Almost verbatim what I was thinking. If it can't explain everything, it explains nothing! No, caller, you idiot, that isn't how it works.
Very simple: Dna-> mRNA(intron selection)-> protein backbone -> protein folding-> (some extra steps) -> protein. Many of these together can do things in the body. ~50% of the father and ~50% of the mother. Certain traits are more dominant in their expression due to the method they are expressed. But this guy rejects genes in general so it's no use to talk with someone about genes in general. These types of people you need to ask one thing before you talk with them: "Write your argument down in as short of a form" if they can't, it's incoherent what will come out of their mouth and the conversation is moot. I got to 12min and refused to listen more to Brainfart McMakesnosense
Yah, the end bit where he claims that everything said about Lysenko was wrong was the giveaway. Crazy tankie just trying to make biology conform to Fifties Marxist-Leninism.
He did sound like a Christian pre-sup with a script that has to be followed, no matter where the actual debate is going. He still talked a load of word-salad though, so the script was rubbish!
As a person who doesn’t know a damn thing about biology but an awful lot about psychology , I must say that this guy’s need to feel superior and intelligent must not win him many friends and it’s likely because he thinks he is too smart for them.
I feel like we should stop using the term Radom to describe mutation. It sound like it’s equivalent to throwing a die. Biological mutation involve stochastic process ,where certain processes do not guarantee a mutation but there is a probabilistic outcome attached to certain processes. The same way below a certain threshold of exposure to radiation we can not say whether you will get cancer but we can give you the probability.
35:20 Caller says "GMO's failure to thrive." That's incorrect. Some do, some don't. For example, GMO corn (modified to resist insecticides) is so pervasive that people who never even used the seeds have it in their fields. Farmers have actually been sued by Monsanto for having GMO corn they never planted.
That's the neat thing... He doesn't have to look. All across the internet people VOLUNTARILY bring themselves onto these kind of internet talk shows for a virtual flogging.
My MA is in Soviet History. This guy is clueless. Lysenko thought vernalization created a new species. What we're seeing is people being told that epigenetics are a thing, that the environment affects you on a genetic level and therefore your offspring, and therefore somehow that shows that Lamarck was correct, and not understanding the difference between epigenetics and Lamarckism and that Lamarck is still wrong. This process involves memorizing big words that they don't understand and smoking a lot of weed. Had a guy like this in my group of friends in grad school, nice guy, good to be around, stimulated discussion, but, *hits a bong* dude, what if Devil's Tower is a tree stump? *exhales*
@@Dhampy Was I wrong in describing how Lysenko thought plants could absorb traits from others and that they tried implementing this with disastrous consequences?
@@planetpeterson2824not exactly, they believed, that by exposing an organism to certain conditions they develop a "heredity" for that condition. Meaning they start to actually NEED this environment. They also believed, that this "heredity" usually dispersed throughout the body and was collected in the germ cells for procreation. When two cells with different heredity came together they thought the "stronger" would consume the weaker as sustenance and take in some of the traits. They thought grafting, hybridisation and vernilisation would proof their theory, and ignored all signs to the contrary. So they tried to make crop that grows in winter, by exposing large quantities of grain to freezing temperature, or grafted plants with desired traits on other plants. Or created hybrids with the assumption that the hybrid is generally stronger and better then the parental plants AND that their offspring will have the same trait. Which is the exact oppossite of what actually happens. I am a hobby urban gardener, and Hybrids can be great, when selected carefully, but they cannot be multiplied just like that, when you try you usually get an unreliable mix of the grand parental species traits, which is often very undesirable... IF they are not fully sterile to begin with. The same goes for grafting. Yes, you can graft one plant on another and combine traits this way, this is routinely done for fruit trees and roses, but can also be done with other species like tomatoes. By combining the root and sometimes stem of one breed that has traits you want (for fruit trees in an urban environment usually robust against temprature changes, deseases and reduced need for water as well as slow growth, while having efficient nutrient absorption) with the "crown" of a breed that yields the fruits you want (or has the blossoms you like most). This is even necessary to get high yields for many fruit trees as the forms that have the fruits we like often have root systems that really suck, or they are extremely vulnerable to moisture, stress etc. You basically let the roots of a robust breed carry the "babies" of another breed, to ensure a perfect outcome. The next generation has to be grafted again though. you cannot just plant them as is, because they did not inheret the traits of the carrier plant... Which would be like thinking that if an IVF child is carried by a a woman they are not related to genetically, they will still inherit some if not all of her traits. Disasters that are not unlike that can be seen these days, too btw. in areas in which big companies sold the people on the idea they should plant their super cool hybrid plants, and when the people then try to multiply this "super plant" as they used to with their hetitage seeds, they have catastrophic crop failures. Which is a real problem in areas where people simply cannot afford to buy seeds every year. When their governments funded these seeds or the companies gave them away for very cheap they first had fantastic results and stopped multiplying the breeds the originally raised in that area... only to find out that they are now fully dependant on that company.
@@planetpeterson2824 You're broadly correct with the exception much occurring in the 50s. I don't know if we can convincingly argue that Lysenkoism was a singular cause of famine, but it was part of a mix of several causes. The most significant famine during Stalin's reign was in 32-33. This is the same famine where maybe Stalin tried to commit genocide and there is legitimate debate over if the Holodomor was intentional, but I fall on the side of it being intentional. Stalin, despite not being Russian in the slightest, was the largest Great Russia chauvinist that ever lived and the Ukrainians were both not politically reliable as a group and the conclusive proof that Russians are the descendants of Ukrainian settlers and not the other way around. But anyway. Lysenko did believe that plants are class-conscious (arguing that plants of the same "class" don't compete in nature) and that if you vernalize spring wheat that its seeds will keep the vernalized state. So they would grow as fast as if they were vernalized, without being vernalized. I don't think the latter idea was a great cause of famine. Rather, the former was. Lysenko argued that the remains of crops should be plowed into the soil after harvesting. The idea being it would protect winter crops from frost. And it worked in limited circumstances in the small strip of Siberia where the climate was just perfect. What it did in the rest of the country is promote weed growth. But Lysenko argued that because wheat is a grass and the weeds were grass, that they were incapable of competing for nutrients due to their class consciousness. He also argued that potatoes should be planted in the late summer, to reduce their exposure to potato diseases most common the early summer. What it actually did was kill years of potato harvests. These worked with both the practice of, and resistance to, collective farming (collective farming was done under Lyseknoist oversight, with insufficient tools and untrained farmers) (and kulaks--a term with political implications but think about individual farmers--would kill their animals and destroy their crops in response to collectivization), and with the formerly Tsarist and not Soviet practice of confiscating grain and selling it internationally to raise capital and resistance to confiscation (peasants would destroy their grain, and then the state would take their seed grain instead), to create the worst man-made famine that most in the West has heard of. And, yeah, there was hunger during WWII, but not on a scale seen before. There were no famines after 1947, although in the 60s there was a spree of farmers killing livestock due to a major drought but no famine. The Soviets were wealthy enough by that point to be a grain importer, especially from the US, which is how we get the Khrushchev thaw, detente, and Big K touring Iowa corn fields. Lysenkoism was exported to China, and is part of the causes of the Great Chinese Famine in the late 50s and early 60s. Timothy Snyder makes a convincing, well-sourced, argument for about 3.3 million in Ukraine in the 30s famine, making it about 6 or 7 million all told. There's a lot of Ukrainian scholars who also throw in people not born as a death, but I'm not sure we can do that. When I've taught this, I treat people not born in a demographics discussion specifically as an aftermath, same with Soviet losses in WWII. People not born is a big deal, sometimes more disastrous than the actual loss of life, but they're not killed in the event. The Chinese example killed 15 million in the most conservative estimates. The largest claims are around 55 million. But I'm not familiar enough with the topic to be able to determine how they're counting or what they're counting. There were major natural disasters during the Chinese famine which made it far worse, and I don't know how they treat that variable. Although I sucked at teaching on the university level so now work in local history in the midwest, I do try hard to keep up on my Sovietology.
The most accurate thing this Jordan Peterson wannabe said was "I don't know, I'm not a biologist". He should have left it at that, but that was about three quarters of the way into his pointless screed. If he had opened with that point, PP and everyone else listening could have been spared quite a bit of grief.
That comment really sums ip the cult of anti-intellectualism that now rules the USA, and is hastening our downfall. He thinks freedom means “my opinion is as good as your knowledge”
The way this guy uses dialectics to deflect is hilarious. He mixes up quantative and qualitative multiple times. Not to mention that it actually supports Peterson's point, since without meaninglessly pointing to dialectics, Peterson clearly is applying dialectics to his understanding.
@PlatinumAltaria that's also true for some of them & I think we all hate the ones who latch on to the one time you said "your" instead of "you're" as though that debunked everything you said
Having heard the whole video, it seems like the entire argument is "the process of qualitative trait formation is not hermetic therefore genes arent real." But genes never promised to fully determine the organism, merely to determine what its cellular structure attempts to do. Peterson's 🔫 metaphor is apt, because it points out that just becusse these things exist in an environment and sequence doesn't actually reduce their agency or causality. Also, very weird to say information is metaphysical. Very very weird idea, caller.
What an exhausting know-it-all. In the first half, his argument was basically “we can’t define/understand it so it doesn’t exist.” Then, an absolute garden of word-salad (I’m confident even he doesn’t know what he’s saying). As soon as he started talking about Lysenko, I knew he was a professional idiot. Kudos to Dr. Cope for schooling him.
This video relates to my favourite argument for evolution. Ask Jordan to "answere" this: What do they teach genetic students so they can actually practice genetics, is it stuff from the textbooks or stuff from creation science books? Even Georgia Purdem couldn't "answer" it, and she's supposed to be a practicing qualified geneticist and she's a yec and she "debunks" evolution with Ken Ham (with her genetics experience). 😂 But I weaponised her "weapon against evolution", against her and won! 🎉 If she was "right" she would have easily been able to answer it. 😂 I trolled her on her ch and asked her that question. No reply after 3 weeks, and I asked her again and still silent.😂 A creationist of that "calibre" completely destroyed by simple logic! 🎉 Basically no creationist even tries to answer it, and I asked many, and no response. Why it's my favourite creationism debunk! 😊
Jordan Peterson just says big words to people who don't know what they mean. He's a grifter. It sounds good, but it's all bullshit 😂. I mean, " Genes are discussing with each other their ideas?"😂😂 WTF is that even.
"unfinished" should be the key phrase here.... when even the author of a book does not want to pursue the line of thought further you should think twice befor taking it too seriouse
@hannajung7512 I am obviously not expert, so I'm not sure exactly what the reason for it's unfinished status is, but the phrase "dialectics of nature" was so weird and particular, that I had to learn more.
There was a reason we only really remember Engels as that guy who stanned Marx really hard, and as a reference case for the equivocation fallacy with "On Authority."
The Herring Gulls of various species were considered a ring species but they seem to have lost the status. The Greenish Warbler is a Ring Species around the Tibetan Plateau.
Of course he's a Lysenkoist. The flat earthers of the authoritarian left. I should have known the instant he said "dialectic". It's NEVER been good to hear that word in a science discussion it's NEVER good.
@@KirinDave IT does. Doesn't stop this guy being an idiot, but Dialectics is the use of relationship dynamics. A influenced B, which in turn influences A, thus changing the influence that A has on B etc. there are places where dialectics are not useful, but where they precisely ARE useful is ecological webs, and societal analysis. So: right here. And no, Marx and Engels did not create Dialectics, they simply applied Dialectics to economics and society. Basically, like the guest, you know some words, but you don't understand them.
3:50-ish It's the common gull, whichever gull is common at that longitude. In the UK it's the Herring Gull _(Larus argentatus)_ and the Lesser Black-Backed Gull _(L. fuscus)_ which are the ends of the gull ring that can't breed with each other. The Herring Gull can breed, though, with the American Herring Gull _(L. smithsonianus)_ which can breed with the East Siberian Gull which can breed with Heuglin's Gull which can breed with the Lesser Black-Backed Gull.
@ I do get that. But there is enough there that we have substantial maps of gradual evolution. Even just in Human evolution. I wouldn’t expect a full record, but the early parts of this video was strangely dismissive of what is currently available in terms of the fossil record and intermediate fossils/evidence of gradual evolution.
Bro missed day 1 of structural biochemistry 101. Genes are just the core concept of structure-function in a more scaled-up form. The gene is a discrete sequence of nucleotides that code for a particular protein. Some traits come down to variation in multiple proteins or specific protein modifications. Not understanding the full breadth of all possible protein interactions in the human body doesn’t mean genes don’t exist 😂
Indeed. Nobody denies that genes operate within a system in a complex manner, said complexity increasing as you move up in the hierarchy of biological organization, i.e. from the cell to tissues to organs to organ systems to whole organisms. But to claim that they're nothing more than a "metaphysical construct" is to claim that the entire discipline of molecular biology is just fart sniffing. One can delete a gene and it that has a measurable effect -- a heritable one. Then if you replace that gene or it's protein product, the effect of the original deletion is reversed. With the proper controls, that's about as close to absolute causality as you can get. You can mutate a gene and that changes a specific protein's functionality, increasing or decreasing that functionality, depending on what specific mutation is done. Even epigenetic changes are changes to gene function/expression; even if sequence changes are not part of that, the effect is still ON THE GENE and what it does, and again, that effect is heritable. There are countless examples of SPECIFIC gene variations that result in specific diseases, and if the particular gene is nuclear genome-encoded, rather than mitochondrial genome-encoded, then the defective gene and its consequences will be inherited along classic Mendelian lines that CAN be accurately, even if simplemindedly, predicted using those middle school-level Punnett squares that the caller dismissed. That's not metaphysics, it's just application of concrete scientific methods to understand how mature works. The caller is just another complete doofus with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger.
Wow, ok, he is very confused. Mutations aren’t purely random, they are limited by chemistry. Where mutations happen and which possible mutation does happen IS random, but there can still be a bell curve, that’s the point of added function research on diseases, to rapidly mutate existing diseases to see what mutations are likely to happen and spread in nature. Punctuated equilibrium is that random mutation accumulate if there is no strong selection pressure to kill them off, then if there is a relatively fast change to the environment, then suddenly there IS selection pressure, and many of those accumulated mutations that existed in only a small percentage of the population suddenly spread because they are selected for, and the species has significant changes. Random mutation + non-random selection = non-random outcomes.
Genes have a very specific anatomy to them. They start with a promotor and operator region which followed by sections of exons and introns which code for proteins and handle splicing respectively. We can tell which parts of a DNA molecule are and aren't genes purely based on their anatomy now without even knowing what the function of that gene is. In fact, we go looking for these elements to locate genes first then we do tests to find out what the genes do.
@@WynnterGreen No, you didn't take it from a dictionary. That's a lie. And you don't trust anything I said? Lmfao, okay liar. Go ahead, cite the dictionary coward and liar.
24:10 Why don't we see evolution happening today? That's because it is too slow. Why don't we see evolution in the fossil record? That's because it is too fast.
5:21 @GutsickGibbon would probably say something like species are actually much more difficult to define than we tend to assume anyways, and that the interbreeding with fertile offspring criterium doesn't hold well in many cases, e.g. along a long enough line - even a straight, vertical one - in a philogenic tree, which makes perfect sense if you consider the birds example (which I assume is true, didn't check). She would of course say it better than me and more true, sorry for any unintended misunderstanding or misrestitution.
I have a book of mathematical probabilistic combinatorics that is entirely focused on mathematical proofs of the precise rate of speciation given environmental selection pressures large scale accumulated changes due to natural selection of those divergent features consequential of the varience due to genetic drift at specific rates. The book provides precise formulae to do amazing things with molecular clock predictions, the math was sound, the proofs were elegant, the predictions correspond closely with empirical reality. Macro-evolution is real.
Dear Planet, next time you are asked about the phenomology of macroevolution like this sophist was doing, remember to emphasize the selection pressures as the instrument of speciation. Also, clarify the genomics versus phenomics. Learn from Forrest Valkai's rhetoric.
I think maybe the argument he’s making a quantitative qualitative changes is that if the internal contradiction is correct for external forces to play on it that a quantitative change internally can create a qualitative change in this synthesis. So for example, a quantitative change in heat on an egg produces a chicken because it has the right internal situation to produce a chicken with the right external factors, however an stone placed under those same conditions would not create a chicken obviously, because the internal situation is not in a position to be active on changv If you’re not basing your epistemology on a cyclical relationship between imperialism and rationalism in that order and prioritizing material first you cannot have an understanding of nature or anything completely and I think this is a big loss
Bro wants you to explain a doctorate thesis on biochemistry how DNA translates into macrostructures in an organism. ...and then he transitioned right up into sophistry.
I immediately stop listening when someone uses the word "dialectic". 9 times out of 10, they're using it incorrectly or what they're saying is completely meaningless word salad. That's such a "trust me bro. I'm smart" word to use. f-ing philosophy bros.
16:19 We understand that genes can exclusively cause disease, like downs syndrome, or influence the vulnerability of disease, like types of heart disease, diabetes and cancers.
Wow, this guy was the most photosynthesis guest you've ever had.
When he gave his first word-salad, I was actually concerned that he didn't include "paradigm."
Word salad needs "paradigm." It's like the lettuce in the salad.
Fortunately, he included it later, but he did have me worried there for a while.
@@putzthewonderslothword salad also always needs "metaphysical substrate"
Classic Dunning-Kruger: He learned a few terms and thinks that he knows more than the performed and evaluated scientific results show.
Babe I'm begging you to stop perpetuating the myth of Dunning-Kruger, a thoroughly debunked idea statistically and through lack of replication with proper statistical controls.
MeTaPHysiCs
This guest did a heck of a lot of dialectical photosynthesis.
“I’m explaining something very simple to you” in the most complex way possible.
Very photosynthesis
@@WhatAreDrums729extremely photosynthesis
Exactly. If you can’t explain it simply, then you don’t understand it.
That's not always true. Like for example dogs can't understand most what we tell them and we can make them understand all sorts of things.
Like no matter how many barks and growls we make, we cannot make the dog to understand the concept of planets.
Sometimes we just have to use a little bit more mature language to explain things, like planets are massive objects in space, often far larger than the earth.
Now for someone in 1000 years ago, even most humans couldn't understand this statement. Object was probably word that wasn't invented yet, there was no concept of space, at least outside philosophers and astronomers. And especially layman had no concept of the size of earth. So someone travelling from year 2000 to 1000 couldn't make much sense of anything, without sounding crazy.
"So you're telling me there are human made tools that use lightning and make paintings appear? What drugs are you on?"
But saying all that, I do think most of the stuff Jordan Peterson is saying is just word salad. He light be well read person but the ego is getting to him at the same time he's getting older. But as time and time again is proven, most people start lacking understanding to new ideas after their life worked so well to generate wealth with certain ideology, so they have to grasp straws in order to defend their solutions.
Synapsis:
Caller: The word gene was once used as a singular noun for an unknown single unit of something that would control a single characteristic that is always passed down from generation to generation.
Reality: science has not used the word gene like that for 80 years, because DNA sequences are what we discovered that fit the bill for the old definition, even though we know that single sequences don't usually express traits on their own, or don't necessarily express in every generation etc.
Caller: So genes aren't real, because only the original definition counts.
Planet Peterson and friends: what is your point and why does it matter?
Side effect of being home schooled
Thank you for this comment. I was so confused what the caller was actually trying to say.
Fact: Science isn't an entity. It doesn't "do", "use", or "think", as it is a word to define a set of descriptors for a concept we called "science". [...]
@@johns1625 Nah, as the title of the post claims, more likely the result of watching too many videos from JP, then becoming way too enamored with the smell of his own metaphysical farts.
Caller: the original definition of "atom" is a particle of an element that can't be divided futher.
Fact: Atoms can be divided into protons and nutrons.
Conclusion: Atoms aren't real🤯!
Caller sounds extremely photosynthesis. I can tell by the words he dialects
JP language?))
"Nature is constantly undergoing a dialectical process" This sentence literally means nothing. What,
nature is having a debate? I really don't think he knows the definitions of the words he is saying.
What became most apparent after reviewing all of the arguments is the guests ego. And need to feel like he has forbidden knowledge.
"I think species emerge based on the conditions of life that they generate from" was my top quote
In a roundabout way that is correct, because we as animals are nature and we do have debate lol but that’s too obvious to say as something profound.
@@145pajamasthat is JBP whole schtick actually
"Is the gene an eternal, immutable substance?" 🤣
that "forbidden knowledge" part is so on point. Many of these clowns hear professors speak or they try to read an in depth scientific paper on genetics and can't understand it, so instead of researching what they don't understand, they try to philosophize about it.
But if you live in the 21st century and still don't understand what DNA does in the body, then a trip back to school is required for the guest.
There is a sub-species of mildly educated Peterson bros who dazzle the plebs around them with their verbiage but fall flat when confronting actual subject matter experts
Calling genes static and immutable almost broke me.
I cannot think of a molecule structure LESS static then our DNA and RNA.
I rate this conversation: 999 Professor Dave Explains saying “yum yum yum” while shaking a bottle of ranch dressing.
Something something metaphysical substrate something something collective unconscious.
Peterson's (Jordan, that is) has an absurd understanding of the collective unconscious. It isn't some supernatural thing. It's about shared stories and values.
Some something something, dark side…something something something, complete - general palpatine 😂
Derp derpity derp de-derp.
And Jungian Archetypes!
@@JimiJams55never forget those
Every sentence was like a car crash
Car crashes make sense.
If I knew that there was going to be a word salad here, I would have brought some dressing
Accusing of word salad is word salad
@RandyHurness It wasn't an accusation. The majority of the guys statements were incoherent. His concepts neither fit scientific or philosophical methodologies.... whichbis commonly called.... word salad
@@gryph01 More word salad
@gryph01 I'm just pointing out that anyone can commit appeal to ridicule fallacies like this. This is why they're not valid arguments
@@gryph01 In order to justify that he actually did engage in word salad, you would need to actually justify a specific example of this. Simply repeating the assertion over again isn't a justification of the accusation. Nor is it an argument.
Clearly owls, are the koalas of the Arctic tundra.
Where do you find these people? It’s like he overheard someone talking about biology in another room 10 years ago, read a thesaurus and a book of poetry, and now he’s a confident expert.
It all comes down to these kinds of people not liking the fact they share ancestry with Africans.
23:15 And this is where you can tell he stopped reading about 1% through a lay description of punctuated equilibrium or is cheating off of someone who did.
11:49 only this far in but feels like his argument is a weird amalgamation of " Language is inexact and you can't prove causality with 100% certainty therefore evolution is false"
17:01 da fuq is an "empiricist Anglo-Saxon method" 🙄
"You see, DA WHITE MAN . . ."
It's like you're in my head. Almost verbatim what I was thinking. If it can't explain everything, it explains nothing! No, caller, you idiot, that isn't how it works.
@@zacharyberridge7239
I’m glad others picked up on that too.
The mutations are random - the selection is not random.
This was a qualative photosynthesis Mind blown 🤯
Very simple:
Dna-> mRNA(intron selection)-> protein backbone -> protein folding-> (some extra steps) -> protein.
Many of these together can do things in the body.
~50% of the father and ~50% of the mother.
Certain traits are more dominant in their expression due to the method they are expressed.
But this guy rejects genes in general so it's no use to talk with someone about genes in general.
These types of people you need to ask one thing before you talk with them:
"Write your argument down in as short of a form" if they can't, it's incoherent what will come out of their mouth and the conversation is moot.
I got to 12min and refused to listen more to Brainfart McMakesnosense
That was a lot of yapping just to conclude with "I'm a tankie so you shouldn't take me seriously."
Yah, the end bit where he claims that everything said about Lysenko was wrong was the giveaway. Crazy tankie just trying to make biology conform to Fifties Marxist-Leninism.
I know right he couldve led with that and saved us all 45 minutes
14:12 this is where you can tell, essentially for sure, he's working off of a script or rigid proposition.
He did sound like a Christian pre-sup with a script that has to be followed, no matter where the actual debate is going. He still talked a load of word-salad though, so the script was rubbish!
I agree. They usually are.
@@mojomusica Everytime you people misuse that term, a kitten dies from not wanting to be here anymore. Too much stupid.
As a person with post-graduate education in molecular biology, it was painful listening to this guy's ignorance. 🤦♂️
As a layman, I have to say it was still painful.
As a person who doesn’t know a damn thing about biology but an awful lot about psychology , I must say that this guy’s need to feel superior and intelligent must not win him many friends and it’s likely because he thinks he is too smart for them.
As a person with ears this was suffering
I feel like we should stop using the term Radom to describe mutation. It sound like it’s equivalent to throwing a die. Biological mutation involve stochastic process ,where certain processes do not guarantee a mutation but there is a probabilistic outcome attached to certain processes. The same way below a certain threshold of exposure to radiation we can not say whether you will get cancer but we can give you the probability.
Is the unit of hereditary in the room with us right now?
loved the "magic schoolbus" reference around 18:00. Watched that with my daughter a couple decades ago.
Peterson deserves an award for dealing with this nonsense
35:20 Caller says "GMO's failure to thrive." That's incorrect. Some do, some don't. For example, GMO corn (modified to resist insecticides) is so pervasive that people who never even used the seeds have it in their fields. Farmers have actually been sued by Monsanto for having GMO corn they never planted.
17:08 And this is where you can tell bro needs to lay off the mushrooms.
Seriously where do you find these people
The wonderful land of Tik Tok
That's the neat thing... He doesn't have to look.
All across the internet people VOLUNTARILY bring themselves onto these kind of internet talk shows for a virtual flogging.
It was very kind of you to interact with this mouthbreather's armchair biology for so long.
My MA is in Soviet History. This guy is clueless. Lysenko thought vernalization created a new species. What we're seeing is people being told that epigenetics are a thing, that the environment affects you on a genetic level and therefore your offspring, and therefore somehow that shows that Lamarck was correct, and not understanding the difference between epigenetics and Lamarckism and that Lamarck is still wrong. This process involves memorizing big words that they don't understand and smoking a lot of weed. Had a guy like this in my group of friends in grad school, nice guy, good to be around, stimulated discussion, but, *hits a bong* dude, what if Devil's Tower is a tree stump? *exhales*
@@Dhampy Was I wrong in describing how Lysenko thought plants could absorb traits from others and that they tried implementing this with disastrous consequences?
@@planetpeterson2824not exactly, they believed, that by exposing an organism to certain conditions they develop a "heredity" for that condition. Meaning they start to actually NEED this environment.
They also believed, that this "heredity" usually dispersed throughout the body and was collected in the germ cells for procreation.
When two cells with different heredity came together they thought the "stronger" would consume the weaker as sustenance and take in some of the traits.
They thought grafting, hybridisation and vernilisation would proof their theory, and ignored all signs to the contrary.
So they tried to make crop that grows in winter, by exposing large quantities of grain to freezing temperature, or grafted plants with desired traits on other plants.
Or created hybrids with the assumption that the hybrid is generally stronger and better then the parental plants AND that their offspring will have the same trait.
Which is the exact oppossite of what actually happens.
I am a hobby urban gardener, and Hybrids can be great, when selected carefully, but they cannot be multiplied just like that, when you try you usually get an unreliable mix of the grand parental species traits, which is often very undesirable... IF they are not fully sterile to begin with.
The same goes for grafting. Yes, you can graft one plant on another and combine traits this way, this is routinely done for fruit trees and roses, but can also be done with other species like tomatoes.
By combining the root and sometimes stem of one breed that has traits you want (for fruit trees in an urban environment usually robust against temprature changes, deseases and reduced need for water as well as slow growth, while having efficient nutrient absorption) with the "crown" of a breed that yields the fruits you want (or has the blossoms you like most).
This is even necessary to get high yields for many fruit trees as the forms that have the fruits we like often have root systems that really suck, or they are extremely vulnerable to moisture, stress etc.
You basically let the roots of a robust breed carry the "babies" of another breed, to ensure a perfect outcome.
The next generation has to be grafted again though. you cannot just plant them as is, because they did not inheret the traits of the carrier plant... Which would be like thinking that if an IVF child is carried by a a woman they are not related to genetically, they will still inherit some if not all of her traits.
Disasters that are not unlike that can be seen these days, too btw. in areas in which big companies sold the people on the idea they should plant their super cool hybrid plants, and when the people then try to multiply this "super plant" as they used to with their hetitage seeds, they have catastrophic crop failures. Which is a real problem in areas where people simply cannot afford to buy seeds every year. When their governments funded these seeds or the companies gave them away for very cheap they first had fantastic results and stopped multiplying the breeds the originally raised in that area... only to find out that they are now fully dependant on that company.
@@planetpeterson2824 You're broadly correct with the exception much occurring in the 50s. I don't know if we can convincingly argue that Lysenkoism was a singular cause of famine, but it was part of a mix of several causes. The most significant famine during Stalin's reign was in 32-33.
This is the same famine where maybe Stalin tried to commit genocide and there is legitimate debate over if the Holodomor was intentional, but I fall on the side of it being intentional. Stalin, despite not being Russian in the slightest, was the largest Great Russia chauvinist that ever lived and the Ukrainians were both not politically reliable as a group and the conclusive proof that Russians are the descendants of Ukrainian settlers and not the other way around. But anyway.
Lysenko did believe that plants are class-conscious (arguing that plants of the same "class" don't compete in nature) and that if you vernalize spring wheat that its seeds will keep the vernalized state. So they would grow as fast as if they were vernalized, without being vernalized.
I don't think the latter idea was a great cause of famine. Rather, the former was. Lysenko argued that the remains of crops should be plowed into the soil after harvesting. The idea being it would protect winter crops from frost. And it worked in limited circumstances in the small strip of Siberia where the climate was just perfect. What it did in the rest of the country is promote weed growth. But Lysenko argued that because wheat is a grass and the weeds were grass, that they were incapable of competing for nutrients due to their class consciousness.
He also argued that potatoes should be planted in the late summer, to reduce their exposure to potato diseases most common the early summer. What it actually did was kill years of potato harvests.
These worked with both the practice of, and resistance to, collective farming (collective farming was done under Lyseknoist oversight, with insufficient tools and untrained farmers) (and kulaks--a term with political implications but think about individual farmers--would kill their animals and destroy their crops in response to collectivization), and with the formerly Tsarist and not Soviet practice of confiscating grain and selling it internationally to raise capital and resistance to confiscation (peasants would destroy their grain, and then the state would take their seed grain instead), to create the worst man-made famine that most in the West has heard of.
And, yeah, there was hunger during WWII, but not on a scale seen before. There were no famines after 1947, although in the 60s there was a spree of farmers killing livestock due to a major drought but no famine. The Soviets were wealthy enough by that point to be a grain importer, especially from the US, which is how we get the Khrushchev thaw, detente, and Big K touring Iowa corn fields.
Lysenkoism was exported to China, and is part of the causes of the Great Chinese Famine in the late 50s and early 60s.
Timothy Snyder makes a convincing, well-sourced, argument for about 3.3 million in Ukraine in the 30s famine, making it about 6 or 7 million all told. There's a lot of Ukrainian scholars who also throw in people not born as a death, but I'm not sure we can do that. When I've taught this, I treat people not born in a demographics discussion specifically as an aftermath, same with Soviet losses in WWII. People not born is a big deal, sometimes more disastrous than the actual loss of life, but they're not killed in the event.
The Chinese example killed 15 million in the most conservative estimates. The largest claims are around 55 million. But I'm not familiar enough with the topic to be able to determine how they're counting or what they're counting. There were major natural disasters during the Chinese famine which made it far worse, and I don't know how they treat that variable.
Although I sucked at teaching on the university level so now work in local history in the midwest, I do try hard to keep up on my Sovietology.
@@planetpeterson2824 I had a big thing typed out but it must have gotten trapped by a language filter. Cliffs: you're accurate. But with more words.
@@Dhampy TH-cam deleting comments is driving me insane
Oh he’s a tankie. Interesting discussion lmao. That was a surprise
Because Lysenkoism worked out so well last time, lol.
@ no you see that’s just capitalist propaganda 🥴
Sometimes ya just gotta say big words to try to sound more photosynthesis 🤷♂
The most accurate thing this Jordan Peterson wannabe said was "I don't know, I'm not a biologist". He should have left it at that, but that was about three quarters of the way into his pointless screed. If he had opened with that point, PP and everyone else listening could have been spared quite a bit of grief.
That comment really sums ip the cult of anti-intellectualism that now rules the USA, and is hastening our downfall. He thinks freedom means “my opinion is as good as your knowledge”
38:00 for any character that is not controlled by DNA then that character is NOT heritable.
I'm hung up on the caller's weird mispronunciations, like "hereditable" and "anticdotal".
How did cleaning your room lead to all this insanity?!
Benzo withdrawal, maybe?
maybe huffing too much cleaning agents?
@@hannajung7512 Or too many benzos.
I swear some ppl need to open a book
19:00 Gene mutations can change qualitative things too.
The way this guy uses dialectics to deflect is hilarious. He mixes up quantative and qualitative multiple times. Not to mention that it actually supports Peterson's point, since without meaninglessly pointing to dialectics, Peterson clearly is applying dialectics to his understanding.
Well those were certainly all words.
Theists love to confuse the thing and the symbol.
It drives me nuts how people with very large vocabularies think or act like they are smarter then everyone just because they know more words.
They actually don't have a large vocabulary, they know 5 or 6 big words and will inject them into every conversation.
@PlatinumAltaria that's also true for some of them & I think we all hate the ones who latch on to the one time you said "your" instead of "you're" as though that debunked everything you said
Use big words and you win! What a strategy. This guy does know science and philosophy aren't the same discipline right?
Having heard the whole video, it seems like the entire argument is "the process of qualitative trait formation is not hermetic therefore genes arent real."
But genes never promised to fully determine the organism, merely to determine what its cellular structure attempts to do. Peterson's 🔫 metaphor is apt, because it points out that just becusse these things exist in an environment and sequence doesn't actually reduce their agency or causality.
Also, very weird to say information is metaphysical. Very very weird idea, caller.
Why TF is this guy having a conversation on this if he doesn't even know what a ring species is? That is literally evolution 101
Im either too high or not high enough to understand what this caller is trying to say
7:10 ohhhh i get the title now
What an exhausting know-it-all. In the first half, his argument was basically “we can’t define/understand it so it doesn’t exist.” Then, an absolute garden of word-salad (I’m confident even he doesn’t know what he’s saying). As soon as he started talking about Lysenko, I knew he was a professional idiot. Kudos to Dr. Cope for schooling him.
34:00 he keeps using rhe word "microbiology" when he means "molecular biology"
This video relates to my favourite argument for evolution. Ask Jordan to "answere" this:
What do they teach genetic students so they can actually practice genetics, is it stuff from the textbooks or stuff from creation science books?
Even Georgia Purdem couldn't "answer" it, and she's supposed to be a practicing qualified geneticist and she's a yec and she "debunks" evolution with Ken Ham (with her genetics experience). 😂 But I weaponised her "weapon against evolution", against her and won! 🎉 If she was "right" she would have easily been able to answer it. 😂 I trolled her on her ch and asked her that question. No reply after 3 weeks, and I asked her again and still silent.😂 A creationist of that "calibre" completely destroyed by simple logic! 🎉 Basically no creationist even tries to answer it, and I asked many, and no response. Why it's my favourite creationism debunk! 😊
Why research when can speculate
Headed for an aneurism at 30, please save yourself 🙏😢😂
Is this a real conversation?
Jordan Peterson just says big words to people who don't know what they mean. He's a grifter. It sounds good, but it's all bullshit 😂. I mean, " Genes are discussing with each other their ideas?"😂😂 WTF is that even.
Insufferable philosophy bro
Picture might be unclear on some areas but overall the picture is 1000 times more clear than it was 300 years ago. That is called science advancement.
Merry xmas people's. It's the 25th in New Zealand 7am
Gould Punctuated Equilibrium is also still widely contested.
I had to look up "dialectics of nature". Its an unfinished book by Engels where he said similar stupid things to JPJ
"unfinished" should be the key phrase here.... when even the author of a book does not want to pursue the line of thought further you should think twice befor taking it too seriouse
@hannajung7512 I am obviously not expert, so I'm not sure exactly what the reason for it's unfinished status is, but the phrase "dialectics of nature" was so weird and particular, that I had to learn more.
There was a reason we only really remember Engels as that guy who stanned Marx really hard, and as a reference case for the equivocation fallacy with "On Authority."
The Herring Gulls of various species were considered a ring species but they seem to have lost the status.
The Greenish Warbler is a Ring Species around the Tibetan Plateau.
Guest, DNA does not interact with anything in a dialectic manner. This is supreme word salad and it's bordering on concerning
that's ok, it sounds like he keeps pronouncing it dielectric.
@@dbeberman Nah he's saying dialectic. He's trying to philospeak to sound smart when he just sounds like a speaker board.
Of course he's a Lysenkoist. The flat earthers of the authoritarian left.
I should have known the instant he said "dialectic". It's NEVER been good to hear that word in a science discussion it's NEVER good.
Is this a Hegelian thing?
@@145pajamasThere's just no reason to use that word in this context.
@@145pajamas No, it's just an attempt to center the language of Marx and Engels everywhere. The way they're using it doesn't even make sense.
@@KirinDave IT does.
Doesn't stop this guy being an idiot, but Dialectics is the use of relationship dynamics.
A influenced B, which in turn influences A, thus changing the influence that A has on B etc.
there are places where dialectics are not useful, but where they precisely ARE useful is ecological webs, and societal analysis.
So: right here.
And no, Marx and Engels did not create Dialectics, they simply applied Dialectics to economics and society.
Basically, like the guest, you know some words, but you don't understand them.
This guest could make a 100% truthful statement, and it would still sound like bullshit due to the tone of his voice. 🙄
We have to trust facts not how someone sounds obviously from California doesn’t change a thing
3:50-ish It's the common gull, whichever gull is common at that longitude. In the UK it's the Herring Gull _(Larus argentatus)_ and the Lesser Black-Backed Gull _(L. fuscus)_ which are the ends of the gull ring that can't breed with each other. The Herring Gull can breed, though, with the American Herring Gull _(L. smithsonianus)_ which can breed with the East Siberian Gull which can breed with Heuglin's Gull which can breed with the Lesser Black-Backed Gull.
So we don't see gradualism irl? Dafuq are dog breeds then???
Honestly, that bothered me from both aspects. We don't see gradualism in the fossil record? Excuse me? lol
@@dododooooo
The fossil record has a shred more leniency because not everything fossilizes.
@ I do get that. But there is enough there that we have substantial maps of gradual evolution. Even just in Human evolution. I wouldn’t expect a full record, but the early parts of this video was strangely dismissive of what is currently available in terms of the fossil record and intermediate fossils/evidence of gradual evolution.
Interrupting word salad says what?
Dialectic-paradigm, dialectic-dingus. Dingus-dingleberry.
Bro missed day 1 of structural biochemistry 101. Genes are just the core concept of structure-function in a more scaled-up form. The gene is a discrete sequence of nucleotides that code for a particular protein. Some traits come down to variation in multiple proteins or specific protein modifications. Not understanding the full breadth of all possible protein interactions in the human body doesn’t mean genes don’t exist 😂
Indeed. Nobody denies that genes operate within a system in a complex manner, said complexity increasing as you move up in the hierarchy of biological organization, i.e. from the cell to tissues to organs to organ systems to whole organisms. But to claim that they're nothing more than a "metaphysical construct" is to claim that the entire discipline of molecular biology is just fart sniffing. One can delete a gene and it that has a measurable effect -- a heritable one. Then if you replace that gene or it's protein product, the effect of the original deletion is reversed. With the proper controls, that's about as close to absolute causality as you can get. You can mutate a gene and that changes a specific protein's functionality, increasing or decreasing that functionality, depending on what specific mutation is done. Even epigenetic changes are changes to gene function/expression; even if sequence changes are not part of that, the effect is still ON THE GENE and what it does, and again, that effect is heritable. There are countless examples of SPECIFIC gene variations that result in specific diseases, and if the particular gene is nuclear genome-encoded, rather than mitochondrial genome-encoded, then the defective gene and its consequences will be inherited along classic Mendelian lines that CAN be accurately, even if simplemindedly, predicted using those middle school-level Punnett squares that the caller dismissed. That's not metaphysics, it's just application of concrete scientific methods to understand how mature works. The caller is just another complete doofus with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger.
Gene: We need to do XYZ
Environment: Well it's cold and you don't eat much
Gene: DO WHAT WE CAN
Caller: Yeah but how?
Wordsalad.
Somewhere out there, this guy is still interrupting you with meaningless woo.
40:05 he is lying about grafting. Grafting is not hybridisation. and the offspring of rhe graft is ways from the scion and. never from the rootstock
What is he reading? He's doing a book report on Pluto's Republic or something else he doesn't understand.
Wow, ok, he is very confused.
Mutations aren’t purely random, they are limited by chemistry. Where mutations happen and which possible mutation does happen IS random, but there can still be a bell curve, that’s the point of added function research on diseases, to rapidly mutate existing diseases to see what mutations are likely to happen and spread in nature.
Punctuated equilibrium is that random mutation accumulate if there is no strong selection pressure to kill them off, then if there is a relatively fast change to the environment, then suddenly there IS selection pressure, and many of those accumulated mutations that existed in only a small percentage of the population suddenly spread because they are selected for, and the species has significant changes. Random mutation + non-random selection = non-random outcomes.
EVERYBODY! It shall be henceforth referred to as "The Anglo-Saxon scientific method"😂
Genes have a very specific anatomy to them. They start with a promotor and operator region which followed by sections of exons and introns which code for proteins and handle splicing respectively. We can tell which parts of a DNA molecule are and aren't genes purely based on their anatomy now without even knowing what the function of that gene is. In fact, we go looking for these elements to locate genes first then we do tests to find out what the genes do.
BEFORE you can apply attributes to the 'metaphysical' you have to demonstrate that the metaphysical exists.
Metaphysics just means the branch of philosophy concerning the study of the ultimate foundations of reality. Every possible reality has a metaphysic.
@Professor_Pink It also means an abstract theory with no basis in reality.
For example, God, which is the basis of his world view.
@@WynnterGreen No, it doesn't mean that.
Given I took that sentence from the dictionary, I no longer believe anything you have to say.
Thanks for the chat.
@@WynnterGreen No, you didn't take it from a dictionary. That's a lie. And you don't trust anything I said? Lmfao, okay liar.
Go ahead, cite the dictionary coward and liar.
24:10
Why don't we see evolution happening today?
That's because it is too slow.
Why don't we see evolution in the fossil record?
That's because it is too fast.
We see it both today and in the fossil record.
Someone needs to take away this persons thesaurus.
5:21 @GutsickGibbon would probably say something like species are actually much more difficult to define than we tend to assume anyways, and that the interbreeding with fertile offspring criterium doesn't hold well in many cases, e.g. along a long enough line - even a straight, vertical one - in a philogenic tree, which makes perfect sense if you consider the birds example (which I assume is true, didn't check). She would of course say it better than me and more true, sorry for any unintended misunderstanding or misrestitution.
Have to give him props for his knowledge on post-revolution Russia
I would love to listen to this guy try to pedal this bullshit to Forrest Valkai lol.
I’d like some Vinaigrette to go along with the word salad 🥗
I have a book of mathematical probabilistic combinatorics that is entirely focused on mathematical proofs of the precise rate of speciation given environmental selection pressures large scale accumulated changes due to natural selection of those divergent features consequential of the varience due to genetic drift at specific rates.
The book provides precise formulae to do amazing things with molecular clock predictions, the math was sound, the proofs were elegant, the predictions correspond closely with empirical reality.
Macro-evolution is real.
Dear Planet, next time you are asked about the phenomology of macroevolution like this sophist was doing, remember to emphasize the selection pressures as the instrument of speciation. Also, clarify the genomics versus phenomics.
Learn from Forrest Valkai's rhetoric.
“DNA emerges from its own requirements in life itself”
What???
I think maybe the argument he’s making a quantitative qualitative changes is that if the internal contradiction is correct for external forces to play on it that a quantitative change internally can create a qualitative change in this synthesis. So for example, a quantitative change in heat on an egg produces a chicken because it has the right internal situation to produce a chicken with the right external factors, however an stone placed under those same conditions would not create a chicken obviously, because the internal situation is not in a position to be active on changv
If you’re not basing your epistemology on a cyclical relationship between imperialism and rationalism in that order and prioritizing material first you cannot have an understanding of nature or anything completely and I think this is a big loss
Bro could be a chef or an english teacher but not a scientist. Ever. Word salad. Period.
Genes are a literal dialectic of potentialities.
FTFY
14:10 what does he mean dropping in that word "dialectic". I think Austin the flunt Whitsit.does this all over the place too.
Bro wants you to explain a doctorate thesis on biochemistry how DNA translates into macrostructures in an organism.
...and then he transitioned right up into sophistry.
I immediately stop listening when someone uses the word "dialectic". 9 times out of 10, they're using it incorrectly or what they're saying is completely meaningless word salad. That's such a "trust me bro. I'm smart" word to use. f-ing philosophy bros.
That guy is very photosynthesis
Havent seen it all yet but he is advocating orthogenesis wo knowing it.
16:19 We understand that genes can exclusively cause disease, like downs syndrome, or influence the vulnerability of disease, like types of heart disease, diabetes and cancers.
Hey dude - the discovery of epigenetics does not make the basic principles of genetics go away.