Dawkins talking with Thunderf00t just goes to show how awesome Dawkins is. I kinda wish you would've let Dawkins talk a little more though. However, this is still extremely awesome.;)
There is such thing as genetic drift. Sometimes even harmful mutations can be passed on. Ever watch the movie 'Idiocracy' ? It's not a great example, but it's a comedy about the future where all the dumbass 'Billy-bobs" fornicate more and more than smart and sensible people, resulting in a future full of dumbasses, and smart people going extinct. Given, the dumb people of the future survived on the again technology created by smart people in the past.
Certainly I could be overlooking something, and be wrong. I always welcome any ideas that show I'm wrong. I just don't think your comments helped make my original statement false.
Fitness is your key word sorry. Genes that tend to give the bodies that they are in severe asthma as a toddler, in a world with no steroids, are not fit to becoming widespread in the gene pool.
A gene that tends to give toddlers stronger lungs than average would, in equal circumstances, be much more fit to survive in that world. In that world, it was much harder for unfit genes to carry on without meds
Fitness is not "my" key word. It's a technical term actually.
I'll give you an example: people with asthma can endure altitude change better than non-asthma people. as they already work as in order compensate for lower %O2 in the air. Therefore they are fit to survive in higher latitudes and might have an advantage in an environmental change.
again your words are not the fittest to be used... "stronger lungs"?
You comited a normal mistake...actually Fit and "good" are NOT synonymous.
What is Fit in a certain environment, may not be fit in another environment. so picking your example of asthma. If suddently a population of individuals had to move into a higher altitude, the individuals with asthma would have a higher fitness than the others.
remember: "good and bad" are relative concepts. "bad" to use in science.
I appreciate the comments and wouldn't mind continuing the discussion but I don't know if it's ok to hijack the youtube thread anymore than I already have LOL
Personally I would have a disadvantage in any breathing situation. Asthma has all sorts of triggers. When asthma is acting up, airways constrict, and less air goes into my lungs.
When the air has less oxygen in it like in high altitude, it only compounds the situation. If the asthmatics happened to wheeze, that whole theory "suffocates"
@transtlantic As someone who's had asthma all of her life, I can assure you that I certainly feel changes in O2 saturation. Any trip up to the mountains is sure to cause me great discomfort.
I think you should stop assuming you know what you're talking about. A person living with the disease trumps anyone claiming to know about said disease simply because they've read about it. Your replies to PipersNicks have been arrogant to the point of absurdity. Anything you have further to add won't convince me otherwise that you're clueless.
phew...if i earned a corner for each patient that told me they tought they knew a lot about their diseases.... if they knew so much why go to the doctor and not just pick a book? because they don't know everything.
living in high altitude does correlate with an increase in asthma prevalence. but i am mentioning a person with asthma living in lower altitudes going to a higher altitude and being there for a awhile. if the environment is dry-. that person will have an advantage.
You cannot possibly know more about what it is like to have asthma than any of your 'patients'. I seriously doubt you're a doctor, by the way. You think that a woman urologist knows more than you do about a penis? It's the same reasoning. She absolutely can't know more than someone WITH one...and you cannot possibly know more than an asthmatic about what it's like to have it, nor what works or doesn't work, nor what irritates it or doesn't. Humble yourself, for fuck's sake.
maybe i had asthma when i was a kid. and then you would be less arrogant in assuming i don't know what it is to live with a adrenaline pen always at arms reach.
a woman urologist knows a lot about penis. more than the 99% of her patients. that's why they go to her to solve their penis problems.
you keep assuming that having a car makes you a driver... uhm...agency concept right there, no?
out of my tree? lol...i told... do not pursue this...
"Some people may find that higher altitudes can actually improve their asthma. If a person's asthma is triggered by dust mites, altitude may help because dust mites are not able to survive in the colder temperatures."
Your grammar is awful for someone who claims to be so learned. Keep in mind the word 'SOME'...quit applying a limited variable across the board. Are you honestly saying there's no dust in the mountains? lmao Have another drink, or hit or bump or whatever you're on that makes you so out of touch.
You can pull scientific papers? Really? You must mean the same thing that anyone with internet capability can do? I'm not impressed. Take a rest from this argument you've clearly lost and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
the majority of the people with internet capability can't access the papers i can access. plus i do HAVE the books about human pathology needed, if you want me to name pages.
"lost"...lol.... seriously...don't post anything else if you want me to debunk you further.
as i said... i like to put it simple. if i pushed it further you wouldn't even grasp the first lines...so why the trouble. i assume you agree with what i posted. or do i really need to make an effort in going for medical journals... at this hour of the night...pls don't make do it...
You have no idea what I would 'grasp'. There goes your arrogance again. You don't know what I know or who I am. What I do know about you is that you try to be an expert in an area you know nothing about....having a book on it doesn't make you that expert. Every single medical journal and text is available at any library here in the U.S. It may be different for Portugal, but I couldn't care less. Keep talking to yourself, though....you clearly enjoy it.
I'll kindly remind our discussion started by my claiming ancient civilizations may have had a better gene pool. Most humans lived at lower altitudes, then and now. That's the environment that the asthmatic genes found themselves in.
They wouldn't have been selected for because of an advantage, in humans.
I think we both know what genes are and how they come to be, and change over time, so of course the asthma genes were part of useful strands of genome( a gene, as I understand it) at one time
If what you say about high altitude is actually true, and also a RESULT of the same genes that cause asthma, I can picture a scenario where asthma ran rampant in a mountainous tribe and then spread throughout the gene pool when they mixed with everyone else. But that still wouldn't discredit my guess about a better gene pool in ancient civilations. Right?
Asthma, as I've read, is caused by several different genes, and set off by environmental triggers. Triggers vary from person to person. I would hasten a slightly educated guess that triggers can be totally unrelated to genes that cause asthma, and also that only some of those genes need to be present. How am I doing so far?
Now for your turn, I want you to breathe through a straw for an hour before bed, while u sleep, and for an hour when you wake up in the morning. That's a mild asthma attack.
Breathe through a cofee stirrer to simulate a moderate to severe attack. It's not spot on to asthma, it can feel even worse.
Really try it though, trust me.
You'll immediately see that this condition does not have any evolutionary advantages at all. Don't do it for an hour though, just imagine that part, I don't want you to get sick. :P
no i didn't. i said that near sightedness and asthma were more serious in older age, that the prevalence of its symptoms was higher in older ages (recently).
is it a problem me being a med student and to have suffered allergic asthma during childhood?
btw... i didn't outgrew my asthma. i know what triggers it. i avoid the triggers.
my point does remain the same: there is no such thing as "bad or good" genes. that's bad science.
It's not a problem. But I would've guessed you'd reveal that info right away, it would help. It wasn't consistent with your earliest comments so I become suspicious.
My point wasn't about good or bad genes it was about ancient civilizations.
You can't really fault me for using "good" and "bad" in my terminology, because it is used often in the popular science books and websites I read. Including the one I'm finishing up now..."The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins !!!
there is no such thing as "good or bad" genes in the context you mentioned.
you can argue that "good" might mean a gene with highest fitness in a certain environment and time. doesn't mean it will have the same fitness all the time and space. therefore...
its a relative term. for example: "fat" genes are "good". but in an environment with lots of food, they turn to "bad".
Dawkins uses the terms to try explain about natural selection. doesn't mean they are actually used in science.
I understand the example about the fat genes being good genes,its right. And good + bad being relative. I agree again.
And It goes deeper than that. Even sociopathic genes could be called good.
I like to think I understand evolution/genes good.
Asthma is not like being addicted to sweets. We need oxygen, no matter what. It was always a human handicap as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can give me a great example of why it's not. You probably can't do that yet, nor can Dawkins or anyone else.
I'll post this in case anybody is interested...I have a feeling you know all this more than me!
Genes don't have brains, but I have to use this terminology, we're not molecular biologists.
A "good" gene is one that successfully lives on in future generations. Even if the gene doesn't have any effect on the body, like "junk dna" If it is able to survive into future generations it is "good" at it's job.
Untreated asthma potentially kills bodies, thus cutting off the gene to future generations.
So you see my logic. The genes that cause asthma, I WOULD GUESS, would be less successful at living on in future generations. Thus making them "bad" at their job. their job still being, living on in future generations...
I still don't think I took a leap of logic anywhere. I might be wrong, sure. But that's different :)
@ThePipersNicks not necessarily... ideally that's the case. But in the age of modern medicine - asthma hardly restricts asthmatics from breeding and producing offspring, thus ensuring its survival.
2) astma is due to a hyperstimulation of the immune system. we NEED the immune system. just like the "fat" example. asthma is the result of over zealous immune system. VERY simply put.
the NEMJ i posted explains all this.
you are not entirely wrong. you are just wrong in the persistence to label genes as "good or bad"... that's bad science... if you really want to learn you should start learning the concept: FITNESS. that would be an improvement.
btw... you prefer easy and simple scientific papers for you to read or do you have any background in molecular biology and i can post some links with some serious talk about asthma?
or we can both rest the case and agree that there are no such thing as "good or bad" genes. which is the point i am trying to claim.
For those living in areas with high-altitude, asthmatics who have adjusted over time to the new conditions will find that their asthma severity and frequency of attacks and other symptoms may decrease.
This is specifically true for those patients with household allergy triggered attacks. This is because there is a reduction in the presence of dust and dust mites in higher altitudes.
to cap it all... i did say what i wrote was very simple and incomplete. The scenario i was trying to point out is that there are NO good or bad genes.
that's stupid and wrong to even try associate with genetics. or any other science.
so... really...don't add more or you will be going to give me the trouble of posting a lot of explanations for you to understand you are not wrong. and i was write about the point i made.
1.'m not upset about it, but to say you know more about asthma than me is a tad arrogant. I have asthma. Asthma attacks are part of it, and cannot be overlooked. It's why it immediately came to my mind in the altitude example. I have gutloads of experience with the symptoms. ;)
2. Is that a compensation that anyone else would also make, if they had lack of oxygen?
When speculating on ancient civilizations and disease, the symptoms have to be considered.
2 not all. That's why genetics is amazing and again you can label genes as "good or bad". sometimes they have a complete twist and their penetrance or expressivity changes.... or a novel mutations happens...
But in general terms... anyone with a chronic asthma will have a compensation. its obvious (with its exceptions here and there).
in terms of "ancient civilzations" i couldn't care less... our gene pool hasn't changed must in the last 10000 years. and that covers practically ALL civs.
Well that was my original point of argument and interest. I'd like to hear what experts have said about it.
I obviously wouldn't be surprised if our gene pool HAS changed. I understand your point, it probably wouldn't be anything too major because we have their bones, but are there enough 10,000 year old genomes on record yet to declare anything yet?
Maybe in ways we digest foods and react to chemicals, etc
On asthma, any compensation from my body isn't enough. I suffer badly, without steroids.
Well if I went to school my teacher would hate me, what can I say? :D
I try to combine knowledge of facts with common sense. Therefore I arrive at the conclusion that some genes are simply bad. The genes themselves are not bad, but they produce effects in the bodies, in their current environments, that are not pleasant or favorable.
That's how my brain operates. I'm trapped in reality!
I can call my asthma genes bad and not ever hear a peep from a medical doctor.
actually no... more than 50% of diagnosed asthma during childhood disappear entirely in adulthood. There is also a natural progression of asthma.
It's all genes PLUS environment.
Your point about hospitals is well made. But that is an ethical issue. As we are assumed free to choose partners and things like "asthma" usually do not influence selection.
Your point could be argued for ALL the premature babies to... they usually died. after the discovery of dexamethasone, more than 70% survive.
At this point Dawkins was probably wondering to himself, how many more variations of his response is he going to have to produce in order to continue to speak to what is essentially a badly gang beaten, dead horse by now
Alas, one final part to go. I hope Dawkins was offered a pillow with which he could take a power nap during the morbidly monotone, 6 min middle dragging part of the final 10 minutes
The way you do it is usually by contacting them via e-mail. Richard Dawkins undoubtedly has a staff ready for his personal affairs, as many of them often do. If you tell them you want to talk about something they published or a topic relating to it then they are usually more than happy to accept. I don't know how he arranged his interview, but I suspect it was in this same fashion.
I am so HAPPY to here such an emminent evolution theorist speak in historical terms. So many wannabe evolutionary reductionists give NO attention to history...and weigh far too much at the Darwinian level...
Darwinian level? Evolution is all about history, it is about lifes history during millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years. Evolution the history of life. What do you mean with the term "Darwinian level"?
I don't mean Darwinian level as inferior or superior - it's one very useful lense to view through...there are other lenses which are also useful - as Dawkins points out.
Well - I don't know about that - that's a pretty loose use of the word 'history.' Evolution is more of a 'chronology' - this happened then that happened-- But I am talking about human history in the academic sense (the department of history studies of human events, the rise and fall of powers, the impact of technologies on the turn of events. etc etc... Both are important - as Dawkins points out - but there are a lot of reductionists out there with little training in history.
If Gary Coleman challenged you to a fight, and you refused because it was ridiculous, should people go around saying that you "ran" from Gary Coleman? Craig is willfully disingenuous. He is consciously dishonest and employs strategies of debate that create the illusion that his opponents are unprepared. continued....
If you fire off a rapid fire flurry of fallacies and false representations of your opponent such that they use their time in turn to correct the slander, leaving little time to deal with the content, or if you frame your argument in such a way that your opponent can't possibly address all the problems in the allotted time, and then claim victory when they don't address each and every point.." my opponent failed to answer for....", it is simply salesman tricks and dishonesty. That is Craig.
I honestly think that bringing conversation such as this (i.e. without shouting, without accusing, without throwing chairs and ad hominem [if I spelled this wrong correct me] attacks) makes it worthy of being posted. I'm rather tired of the bickering and prattle about youtube.
On that note I feel Thunderf00t did a lovely job as did Dawkins. Trying to find a "winner" in this is silly because they aren't fighting, they're -talking- like civilized creatures. Crazy notion, eh?
I take it you view Dawkins as the authority figure here, and TFoot as a mere human. In that sense, you prove Dawkins point and is reduced to an ant in an ants nest.
Well nature didn't intend for use to shave. So it would make sense that the beard would grow faster towards the end of summer or fall and grow slower in winter.
Being your body would be preparing you for winter, almost like a cat or dog where they shed in the spring and their coat becomes thick in the fall.
@tmtyler Short answer: No. Long answer: I am presuming that millions of years ago our ancestors found females with facial hair to be unattractive. Females of the species that did not have as much facial hair or none at all were chosen for breeding purposes. As for why and how the genes to turn on and off facial hair growth function in males or females is beyond my abilities to explain. Suffice to say that males didn't like females with hairy faces, so they didn't survive to breed another day.
Chimps have very little pronounced facial hair. It isn't that females were selected for *lack* of hair, but rather that males were selected with what looks suspiciously like pubic hair all around their mouths.
They should have staged this in a pub. get the juke box on, wee game of darts, game of Pub Quiz on the machine in the pub. Deal Or No Deal, Bull's Eye.
Even if only a few hundred thousand (!) people were forced to 'accept' Islam on pain of death, justb think what that means. To force ANYONE to accept YOUR opinion on pain of death is reprehensible, barbaric and unforgiveable, whatever the creed being promulgated. Can you imagine the Theory of Gravity/Evolution etc being thus spread throughout the world. Nearly all religions have done this at some time. Why? Because religious people 'know'. Divine mission.
in 'everything' i mean natural phenomenons.. thunders, earthquakes.. etc....i'm talking about the first 'religious' experiences of humans... of course we all need to make multiple researches on that, and a lot needs to be studied..i just wrote my guessings... i'll try to get the books u suggested and do some research :p i hope it will be fruitful..thanks again friend and happy new year!
Hey no problem, man and Happy New Year to you as well! If you want more info, you can also wiki "Egyptian Soul" and look at the concept of "Ba (b3)" and see what it says about the "Psyche". Also wiki "Shintoism" and read on how it wasn't a religion until Buddhism came along. Then wiki "Tsukumogami" and check out it's similarity to the Egyptian concept of "Ba".
I hypothesize two things: Either A. Ancient cultures were able to naturally develop their psychic senses and observe the world around them. or B. Research "The Hundredth-Monkey Effect", which is only hypothetical, but I take all possibilities into consideration. Still, my experimentation with modernized reconstructionists versions of these techniques and practices lead me to believe that "A" is more probable.
"psychic senses" - what's that? why not "akdjfhhasuauhf" senses? or why not just "senses" - it being all the word needed to describe....senses.
I think ancient cultures were not made by more evolved humans than me (don't know about you). but they had the same capacity of perception that i have.
You're absolutely correct! They are, plain and simply, "senses"! However, it's only because of the ways of the times that such a differentiating term is given. Had this natural development remained in tact, such distinctions wouldn't be necessary. However, there has developed a chasm in between the senses. This chasm is called "The Noosphere", and while it is beneficial, people must become aware of their senses in order to canalize them.
"The Noosphere" what many occultists term "The Astral Plane", and it is the phenomenon responsible for fraudulent psychics and mediums. Many times an Occultist would think they've stumbled upon something, when it was just their imagination. This is where Zen practices and "Wu Wei Wu" come into play.
Whenever we analyze the history of human cognition, we need to take into consideration that 1500 years of Church dominance has done damage to our cognition and our fundamental assumptions about the things organized religion claims as it's exclusive property. I, however, believe that organized religion is fraudulent by advocating an obfuscated and heavy adulterated style of once valuable teachings as their "specialty".
@transtlantic Lol George Lucas actually used a lot of Occult concepts when he was writing Star Wars. It was a fad back in the 60's and 70's. In fact, Isaac Bonewitz the author of "Real Magick" actually has a degree in Magick from Berkeley (class of '70). This was given as honorary, and thus is the only verifiable degree in Magick ever issued.
@DarkArckana Occultists are people too, and we have professions as well. Many Occultists like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman are Occultists and use Occult incorporate Occult concepts in their Science Fiction works. "American Gods" was based on the Chaos Magick perspective on gods and spiritual beings made popular by Peter J. Carroll and Ray Sherwin, the founders of the IOT.
@DarkArckana [cont] I also suggest looking into Alan Moore's modifications to the X-men Character "Scarlet Witch". Ultimately, there was no such thing as Chaos Magick, Wanda was just manipulating reality all along. This is one of the ways Chaos Magick is approached by some of its adherents. Also notice how her powers are based on mathematical calculations and probability. This is also another popular approach to Chaos Magick. Josh Wetzel, a well-known member of the IOT practices Magick this way.
@transtlantic "... they don't believe as you do in the lore." I do not believe in the lore itself. That is to say, I do not believe that there's an actual "Promethea" or "Scarlet Witch". However, I understand the significance of the elements in the lore and how many of the elements parallel actual Occult practice. As for the term "Magick" the "K" was put at the end by Aleister Crowley to distinguish it from optical illusions. That would be spelled "Magic" without the "K".
thing is... all "magik"/"magick"/"magic"...whatever... IS optical illusion, sound illusions, etc etc... by there is not such a thing as the supernatural. It's all fantasy. You may be fooled into a trick that's all. like all magicians know.
@transtlantic that's where experimenting comes in. Might I suggest doing some research on Chaos Magick? In fact, google in "IOT North America", go to their website and check out some of their videos. Josh Wetzel does a lecture called "Demystifying Magick". That approach to magick may make a little more sense to you.
I've been wondering if maybe the ancient civilizations did have a better gene pool. Given that it probably took more brains and brawn to survive childhood without modern agriculture or clean water.
They had a worst time than any of us in a modern country.
Life expectancy was lower than 35 years of age more than 3000 years ago. There were the mjority of the diseases that endured until 19th and even 20th century. Killing millions of people per year.
there were more accidents, more wars, more famine and complete misery.
that's why that every single individual that exists is the result of an astonishing fight for survival.
Everything you said is true, but it is just expounding on my comment about clean drinking water and agriculture.
We doubled our life span from clean water and agriculture, mostly.
Not genes. My genes, for instance, would've been a tragedy 3000 years ago. NEar-sightedness and asthma. I may not have survived to reproduce. Near sightedness and common minor ailments were probably rarer in the gene pool 3000 years ago, and being a possible death sentence.
you choose two desieases where the majority of the patients only manifest a seious phenotype of illness in later years...
asthma and near sightedness are worse in older age. this means that the genes for it might have existed for thousands of years already, but only now we suffer more from it, because we live longer.
clean water and agriculture? lol.... more like modern medical care - antibiotics, new therapeutics, etc etc.
Asthma is usually more severe in children due to smaller lungs.
My asthma was severe as a child. I was hospitalized 9 times for it. Not once since the age of 10. It's not a big problem now. Since I was talking about my own survival in my original comment, that's all I need to address.
FAR-sightedness is an old age problem. Near-sightedness is not so much. Unless you count 12 years old as old age. Don't you notice kids wear glasses?
2:25-2:55: I'm kinda disappointed Dawkins subscribes to the view that "Islam was spread by the sword". While it's true that many places where Islam is practiced, there were military conquests by Muslims but there are huge exceptions - Indonesia, coastal east Africa, Malaysia, west Africa, etc.
I changed my account because i realised I was being a dick and not making many friends. I now have a beard and will try my best to be as thunderf00tish as possible. First step, wear my sunday best around town being the prettiest girl i can be.
That's because the Holy Ghost is covering your ears. At the same time, the Father is covering your eyes. The son is sitting below, giving you sexual pleasure.
6:00 "... tsunami relief and things like that. That's not easily explained on a Darwinian basis."
Unless charitable donation is a display of a high social status, something that will attract females or otherwise allow for a person to promulgate their genes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thunder f00t trying to act all cool like he doesn't jerk off to Dawkins picture every night. And Dawkins is like who is this stinky hippie looking at my bulge.... He I will do anything to get Thunder F00t to stop calling him. Dawkins probably caught him getting a sniff of his old man tightly Whites after "This is not the Bathroom"
And btw there are a lot of unsettled issues in evolutionary biology so you can't just dogmatically claim that Dawkins has all the better ideas, when on the nitty-gritty details there are a lot of researchers who disagree with him
You'd be especially hard-pressed to say that claims in evolutionary psychology are set in stone
Also, you're making me embarrassed to call myself a freethinker; please stop
Having a vast vocabulary isn't terribly useful when you don't know what the words in it mean
And really idk whether your vocabulary is larger than mine: the Germanic languages I've studied have informed my use of English to some degree, and then there's also the specialized lexica I've acquired for linguistics (my major), neuroscience (my intended grad school major), but also math, philosophy, programming, logic, etc.
So really bro idk maybe you should reconsider your bet
Dawkins talking with Thunderf00t just goes to show how awesome Dawkins is. I kinda wish you would've let Dawkins talk a little more though. However, this is still extremely awesome.;)
ThePhilosophersAbyss 10 months ago
where is this all going???
archeng123 1 year ago
I 'm surprise you got Dawkins to speak with you.
luckyvet 1 year ago
There is such thing as genetic drift. Sometimes even harmful mutations can be passed on. Ever watch the movie 'Idiocracy' ? It's not a great example, but it's a comedy about the future where all the dumbass 'Billy-bobs" fornicate more and more than smart and sensible people, resulting in a future full of dumbasses, and smart people going extinct. Given, the dumb people of the future survived on the again technology created by smart people in the past.
Shuklack 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol I would never have the balls to disagree with Richard Dawkins.
Especiall not about Darwinism.
KaliberKing 2 years ago
do you people realize you're arguing over the internet?
filmnoirincolor 2 years ago
I can't prove it, but it seems logical that the gene pool in ancient civilizations COULD have been better.
Without "modern medical care - antibiotics, new therapeutics, etc etc. "
more children wouldn't make it to the age of reproducing.
The ones that did would have either good genes, or good parents. And being good parents, probably means having good genes.
Genes reproduce. Good parents make their offspring more likely to survive to reproduce, continuing their genes. That's my guess anyway.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
Certainly I could be overlooking something, and be wrong. I always welcome any ideas that show I'm wrong. I just don't think your comments helped make my original statement false.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
I can only try to appeal to the fact that there is no such thing as "bad or good" genes.
Back to genes: there were no better "genes" in the past. they had a different survival rate. Fitness is the key word.
You are not entirely correct. "good parents" is not a trait. "genes" don't reproduce.
"good and bad" don't exist in science.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I understand what you mean, but it's just terminology.
Good genes, in my "language" are ones that survive and reproduce well.
Genes absolutely reproduce. They of course don't have minds, but every cell in your body has a chromosome.
They get reproduced when the bodies they are in reproduce.
Genes that tend to give the bodies that they are in severe asthma as a toddler, in a world with no steroids, would meet their end sooner.
Now, with medicine and hospitals, those genes can go on reproducing.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
Fitness is your key word sorry. Genes that tend to give the bodies that they are in severe asthma as a toddler, in a world with no steroids, are not fit to becoming widespread in the gene pool.
A gene that tends to give toddlers stronger lungs than average would, in equal circumstances, be much more fit to survive in that world. In that world, it was much harder for unfit genes to carry on without meds
Changing the terms doesn't change what I mean :)
Fit genes and good genes are synonymous.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
Fitness is not "my" key word. It's a technical term actually.
I'll give you an example: people with asthma can endure altitude change better than non-asthma people. as they already work as in order compensate for lower %O2 in the air. Therefore they are fit to survive in higher latitudes and might have an advantage in an environmental change.
again your words are not the fittest to be used... "stronger lungs"?
You comited a normal mistake...actually Fit and "good" are NOT synonymous.
transtlantic 2 years ago
The key concept is:
What is Fit in a certain environment, may not be fit in another environment. so picking your example of asthma. If suddently a population of individuals had to move into a higher altitude, the individuals with asthma would have a higher fitness than the others.
remember: "good and bad" are relative concepts. "bad" to use in science.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I appreciate the comments and wouldn't mind continuing the discussion but I don't know if it's ok to hijack the youtube thread anymore than I already have LOL
Personally I would have a disadvantage in any breathing situation. Asthma has all sorts of triggers. When asthma is acting up, airways constrict, and less air goes into my lungs.
When the air has less oxygen in it like in high altitude, it only compounds the situation. If the asthmatics happened to wheeze, that whole theory "suffocates"
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
actually not. you keep missing the point apparently...
1) i know a lot more than you about asthma, so you shuld give me a bit more credit.
2) if you have asthma your body WILL try compensate its lack of oxygen saturation. , higher release of O2 in the tissues, etc etc etc
To cap it all... a person with asthma is better prepared to don't feel extreme changes in air O2 saturation.
I am not even mentioning the asthma attacks. because that's not the point i am bringing up.
transtlantic 2 years ago
@transtlantic As someone who's had asthma all of her life, I can assure you that I certainly feel changes in O2 saturation. Any trip up to the mountains is sure to cause me great discomfort.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
try do a trip to the mountains and stay there for a while. you will see who can get used faster.
do you want me to present scientific studies? or can you at least give it a try and search for it for a bit before holding up to your claims.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I do go to the mountains....I live in a valley surrounded by them. Ever been up to the heights of Mt. Charleston or otherwise here in Nevada?
Fab44Me 2 years ago
i think you should re-read what i posted.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I think you should stop assuming you know what you're talking about. A person living with the disease trumps anyone claiming to know about said disease simply because they've read about it. Your replies to PipersNicks have been arrogant to the point of absurdity. Anything you have further to add won't convince me otherwise that you're clueless.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
phew...if i earned a corner for each patient that told me they tought they knew a lot about their diseases.... if they knew so much why go to the doctor and not just pick a book? because they don't know everything.
living in high altitude does correlate with an increase in asthma prevalence. but i am mentioning a person with asthma living in lower altitudes going to a higher altitude and being there for a awhile. if the environment is dry-. that person will have an advantage.
transtlantic 2 years ago
if i earned a coin, that's what i meant.
transtlantic 2 years ago
You cannot possibly know more about what it is like to have asthma than any of your 'patients'. I seriously doubt you're a doctor, by the way. You think that a woman urologist knows more than you do about a penis? It's the same reasoning. She absolutely can't know more than someone WITH one...and you cannot possibly know more than an asthmatic about what it's like to have it, nor what works or doesn't work, nor what irritates it or doesn't. Humble yourself, for fuck's sake.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
maybe i had asthma when i was a kid. and then you would be less arrogant in assuming i don't know what it is to live with a adrenaline pen always at arms reach.
a woman urologist knows a lot about penis. more than the 99% of her patients. that's why they go to her to solve their penis problems.
you keep assuming that having a car makes you a driver... uhm...agency concept right there, no?
transtlantic 2 years ago
i seriously doubt we should pursue this.....
it won't end well.
transtlantic 2 years ago
You're out of your tree. Have fun in your fantasy world, little man.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
i tought you didn't like fiction...
so why are you making stuff up?
out of my tree? lol...i told... do not pursue this...
"Some people may find that higher altitudes can actually improve their asthma. If a person's asthma is triggered by dust mites, altitude may help because dust mites are not able to survive in the colder temperatures."
transtlantic 2 years ago
Your grammar is awful for someone who claims to be so learned. Keep in mind the word 'SOME'...quit applying a limited variable across the board. Are you honestly saying there's no dust in the mountains? lmao Have another drink, or hit or bump or whatever you're on that makes you so out of touch.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
we can always change to Portuguese then we will see if you are more learned than me in two languages...
well..i suppose i'll really need to pull those scientific papers....really?
transtlantic 2 years ago
You can pull scientific papers? Really? You must mean the same thing that anyone with internet capability can do? I'm not impressed. Take a rest from this argument you've clearly lost and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
the majority of the people with internet capability can't access the papers i can access. plus i do HAVE the books about human pathology needed, if you want me to name pages.
"lost"...lol.... seriously...don't post anything else if you want me to debunk you further.
transtlantic 2 years ago
You haven't debunked me...and I've found your so-called information online. You've done sloppy research. You're out of touch.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
as i said... i like to put it simple. if i pushed it further you wouldn't even grasp the first lines...so why the trouble. i assume you agree with what i posted. or do i really need to make an effort in going for medical journals... at this hour of the night...pls don't make do it...
transtlantic 2 years ago
You have no idea what I would 'grasp'. There goes your arrogance again. You don't know what I know or who I am. What I do know about you is that you try to be an expert in an area you know nothing about....having a book on it doesn't make you that expert. Every single medical journal and text is available at any library here in the U.S. It may be different for Portugal, but I couldn't care less. Keep talking to yourself, though....you clearly enjoy it.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
different here? lol...why?
well... you are just full of insults now...so i guess i am starting to be more and more right...afterall insults don't refute any claim...
I'll dare you answer one more time:
do you think there are "bad or good" genes? that's was the point in the small debate with the other person.
btw...maybe with this you will understand my point:
Acute Oxygen-Sensing Mechanisms, Volume 353:2042-2055, November 10, 2005, Number 19, NEMJ
want me to PM the paper?
transtlantic 2 years ago
The genes argument was one you had with another poster. You really haven't paid attention. Take that up with them.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
as you wish...i won't bother you anymore.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I'll kindly remind our discussion started by my claiming ancient civilizations may have had a better gene pool. Most humans lived at lower altitudes, then and now. That's the environment that the asthmatic genes found themselves in.
They wouldn't have been selected for because of an advantage, in humans.
I think we both know what genes are and how they come to be, and change over time, so of course the asthma genes were part of useful strands of genome( a gene, as I understand it) at one time
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
Sorry, strand of chromosome. Hehe.
If what you say about high altitude is actually true, and also a RESULT of the same genes that cause asthma, I can picture a scenario where asthma ran rampant in a mountainous tribe and then spread throughout the gene pool when they mixed with everyone else. But that still wouldn't discredit my guess about a better gene pool in ancient civilations. Right?
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
Asthma, as I've read, is caused by several different genes, and set off by environmental triggers. Triggers vary from person to person. I would hasten a slightly educated guess that triggers can be totally unrelated to genes that cause asthma, and also that only some of those genes need to be present. How am I doing so far?
Now for your turn, I want you to breathe through a straw for an hour before bed, while u sleep, and for an hour when you wake up in the morning. That's a mild asthma attack.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
Breathe through a cofee stirrer to simulate a moderate to severe attack. It's not spot on to asthma, it can feel even worse.
Really try it though, trust me.
You'll immediately see that this condition does not have any evolutionary advantages at all. Don't do it for an hour though, just imagine that part, I don't want you to get sick. :P
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
nicks... i treat people with asthma... i had asthma attacks when i was younger...
there are no "asthma" genes. there are genes related to our immune system that translate into a phenotype that may produce the disease we call asthma.
I only have nothing but one single point: there are no such things as "bad" or "good" genes. that's bad science.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I haven't forgotten that you originally said that asthma and near-sightedness were old age diseases.
Now it comes to light that you're a doctor, and had childhood asthma that you apparently outgrew. Have a good night.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
no i didn't. i said that near sightedness and asthma were more serious in older age, that the prevalence of its symptoms was higher in older ages (recently).
is it a problem me being a med student and to have suffered allergic asthma during childhood?
btw... i didn't outgrew my asthma. i know what triggers it. i avoid the triggers.
my point does remain the same: there is no such thing as "bad or good" genes. that's bad science.
transtlantic 2 years ago 3
It's not a problem. But I would've guessed you'd reveal that info right away, it would help. It wasn't consistent with your earliest comments so I become suspicious.
My point wasn't about good or bad genes it was about ancient civilizations.
You can't really fault me for using "good" and "bad" in my terminology, because it is used often in the popular science books and websites I read. Including the one I'm finishing up now..."The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins !!!
You might like it :)
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
He writes extensively about what makes a gene good, and uses that very word. He's from Oxford University. They're pretty reputable LOL
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
there is no such thing as "good or bad" genes in the context you mentioned.
you can argue that "good" might mean a gene with highest fitness in a certain environment and time. doesn't mean it will have the same fitness all the time and space. therefore...
its a relative term. for example: "fat" genes are "good". but in an environment with lots of food, they turn to "bad".
Dawkins uses the terms to try explain about natural selection. doesn't mean they are actually used in science.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I understand the example about the fat genes being good genes,its right. And good + bad being relative. I agree again.
And It goes deeper than that. Even sociopathic genes could be called good.
I like to think I understand evolution/genes good.
Asthma is not like being addicted to sweets. We need oxygen, no matter what. It was always a human handicap as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can give me a great example of why it's not. You probably can't do that yet, nor can Dawkins or anyone else.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
I'll post this in case anybody is interested...I have a feeling you know all this more than me!
Genes don't have brains, but I have to use this terminology, we're not molecular biologists.
A "good" gene is one that successfully lives on in future generations. Even if the gene doesn't have any effect on the body, like "junk dna" If it is able to survive into future generations it is "good" at it's job.
Untreated asthma potentially kills bodies, thus cutting off the gene to future generations.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
So you see my logic. The genes that cause asthma, I WOULD GUESS, would be less successful at living on in future generations. Thus making them "bad" at their job. their job still being, living on in future generations...
I still don't think I took a leap of logic anywhere. I might be wrong, sure. But that's different :)
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
@ThePipersNicks not necessarily... ideally that's the case. But in the age of modern medicine - asthma hardly restricts asthmatics from breeding and producing offspring, thus ensuring its survival.
Shuklack 1 year ago
1) junk dna are not genes.
2) astma is due to a hyperstimulation of the immune system. we NEED the immune system. just like the "fat" example. asthma is the result of over zealous immune system. VERY simply put.
the NEMJ i posted explains all this.
you are not entirely wrong. you are just wrong in the persistence to label genes as "good or bad"... that's bad science... if you really want to learn you should start learning the concept: FITNESS. that would be an improvement.
transtlantic 2 years ago 2
argh..... "better gene pool"?!?!?!
No! don't use those terms! there ain't "good or bad genes"! that's bad science!
transtlantic 2 years ago
Comment removed
transtlantic 2 years ago
btw... you prefer easy and simple scientific papers for you to read or do you have any background in molecular biology and i can post some links with some serious talk about asthma?
or we can both rest the case and agree that there are no such thing as "good or bad" genes. which is the point i am trying to claim.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I wasn't talking about genes. You've got me confused with someone else you were trying to bullshit.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
trying to bullshit?!?!?! WHAT? you...
are you really telling me that there are "good and bad" genes? come on...don't be dumb.
the person was mentioning there were "bad genes" and "good genes", arguing that asthma is the result of "bad genes"...
as if such existed...lol
transtlantic 2 years ago
For those living in areas with high-altitude, asthmatics who have adjusted over time to the new conditions will find that their asthma severity and frequency of attacks and other symptoms may decrease.
This is specifically true for those patients with household allergy triggered attacks. This is because there is a reduction in the presence of dust and dust mites in higher altitudes.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Not all asthma is allergic asthma. Therfore, your claim to put all asthmatics in the same category is ill-advised and ignorant.
Fab44Me 2 years ago
i do believe i mentioned> SOME people will be different.
asthma being atopic or non-atopic is only relevant to its precipitation factor....
transtlantic 2 years ago
and i am not even mentioning what i specifically was talking about... but i assumed it was easy to grasp....
transtlantic 2 years ago
to cap it all... i did say what i wrote was very simple and incomplete. The scenario i was trying to point out is that there are NO good or bad genes.
that's stupid and wrong to even try associate with genetics. or any other science.
so... really...don't add more or you will be going to give me the trouble of posting a lot of explanations for you to understand you are not wrong. and i was write about the point i made.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Don't take my talk as completly literal. I am just trying to point out to you that "good and bad" genes. DO NOT exist.
that's a WRONG idea.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I don't think I'm missing your point. I
1.'m not upset about it, but to say you know more about asthma than me is a tad arrogant. I have asthma. Asthma attacks are part of it, and cannot be overlooked. It's why it immediately came to my mind in the altitude example. I have gutloads of experience with the symptoms. ;)
2. Is that a compensation that anyone else would also make, if they had lack of oxygen?
When speculating on ancient civilizations and disease, the symptoms have to be considered.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
2 not all. That's why genetics is amazing and again you can label genes as "good or bad". sometimes they have a complete twist and their penetrance or expressivity changes.... or a novel mutations happens...
But in general terms... anyone with a chronic asthma will have a compensation. its obvious (with its exceptions here and there).
in terms of "ancient civilzations" i couldn't care less... our gene pool hasn't changed must in the last 10000 years. and that covers practically ALL civs.
transtlantic 2 years ago
you CAN'T label as "good or bad". that's what i meant.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Well that was my original point of argument and interest. I'd like to hear what experts have said about it.
I obviously wouldn't be surprised if our gene pool HAS changed. I understand your point, it probably wouldn't be anything too major because we have their bones, but are there enough 10,000 year old genomes on record yet to declare anything yet?
Maybe in ways we digest foods and react to chemicals, etc
On asthma, any compensation from my body isn't enough. I suffer badly, without steroids.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
No I think it's just an argument of semantics here. Let me explain again...
To paraphrase Mr. Dawkins, It's not wrong to talk about genes in everyday language as long as it can be converted back to gene language.
Good means successful.
Bad means unsuccessful.
Certainly unsuccessful genes have existed. They were "bad" at carrying on in the environments they found themselves in.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
thepipernicks....
write "good or bad" genes in ANY school exam, master thesis, research paper, etc etc...
and you would fail. try write: they were unfit in a set environment. BANG proper usage of technical terms.
bad or good DO NOT exist in science. so stop trying to use them. you are prone to make mistakes with those terms.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Well if I went to school my teacher would hate me, what can I say? :D
I try to combine knowledge of facts with common sense. Therefore I arrive at the conclusion that some genes are simply bad. The genes themselves are not bad, but they produce effects in the bodies, in their current environments, that are not pleasant or favorable.
That's how my brain operates. I'm trapped in reality!
I can call my asthma genes bad and not ever hear a peep from a medical doctor.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
I think maybe I understand your larger point that some genes that I would call " bad" may have been useful in their environment at one time.
If that's your point, we're in complete agreement :)
I still have to insist asthma is not a condition that would be favorable at any point in our recent evolutionary past.
You may have the last word here, or pm me, I love to learn and talk about science.
Over and out, sorry for the spam folks!
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
actually no... more than 50% of diagnosed asthma during childhood disappear entirely in adulthood. There is also a natural progression of asthma.
It's all genes PLUS environment.
Your point about hospitals is well made. But that is an ethical issue. As we are assumed free to choose partners and things like "asthma" usually do not influence selection.
Your point could be argued for ALL the premature babies to... they usually died. after the discovery of dexamethasone, more than 70% survive.
transtlantic 2 years ago
How did he contact Dawkins?
Acuraintegraman1 2 years ago
Comment removed
sandslash123 2 years ago
@Acuraintegraman1
Phone book. What are you?
odinata 2 years ago
I figured someone like him would be unlisted. People accuse me of being a fake Christian because i watch atheist videos, but whatever.
Acuraintegraman1 2 years ago
@Acuraintegraman1
You are a fake human.
odinata 2 years ago
lol
Acuraintegraman1 2 years ago
@Acuraintegraman1 Stop spamming, douchebag!
bzM2bH 2 years ago
Love him though I do, I really wish Thunderf00t would let Dawkins get a word in edgeways occasionally...
robidogg 2 years ago
don't we all
zer01ife 2 years ago
At this point Dawkins was probably wondering to himself, how many more variations of his response is he going to have to produce in order to continue to speak to what is essentially a badly gang beaten, dead horse by now
Alas, one final part to go. I hope Dawkins was offered a pillow with which he could take a power nap during the morbidly monotone, 6 min middle dragging part of the final 10 minutes
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
I'm very curious, how did you manage to approach him?
MrMalavon 2 years ago
The way you do it is usually by contacting them via e-mail. Richard Dawkins undoubtedly has a staff ready for his personal affairs, as many of them often do. If you tell them you want to talk about something they published or a topic relating to it then they are usually more than happy to accept. I don't know how he arranged his interview, but I suspect it was in this same fashion.
lordennis01 2 years ago
PM me. I'll take care of ya!
madzyzome 2 years ago
White socks TF?
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
by the way good job thunderfoot! and thank you!
hyperlocavore 2 years ago
many apes...share...
hyperlocavore 2 years ago
I am so HAPPY to here such an emminent evolution theorist speak in historical terms. So many wannabe evolutionary reductionists give NO attention to history...and weigh far too much at the Darwinian level...
hyperlocavore 2 years ago
Darwinian level? Evolution is all about history, it is about lifes history during millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years. Evolution the history of life. What do you mean with the term "Darwinian level"?
aaKonda 2 years ago
I don't mean Darwinian level as inferior or superior - it's one very useful lense to view through...there are other lenses which are also useful - as Dawkins points out.
hyperlocavore 2 years ago
'Evolution is the history of life'. Typo corrected.
aaKonda 2 years ago
Well - I don't know about that - that's a pretty loose use of the word 'history.' Evolution is more of a 'chronology' - this happened then that happened-- But I am talking about human history in the academic sense (the department of history studies of human events, the rise and fall of powers, the impact of technologies on the turn of events. etc etc... Both are important - as Dawkins points out - but there are a lot of reductionists out there with little training in history.
hyperlocavore 2 years ago
This guy ran from William Lane Craig.
xchampx 2 years ago
If Gary Coleman challenged you to a fight, and you refused because it was ridiculous, should people go around saying that you "ran" from Gary Coleman? Craig is willfully disingenuous. He is consciously dishonest and employs strategies of debate that create the illusion that his opponents are unprepared. continued....
WineisyourFriend 2 years ago 2
If you fire off a rapid fire flurry of fallacies and false representations of your opponent such that they use their time in turn to correct the slander, leaving little time to deal with the content, or if you frame your argument in such a way that your opponent can't possibly address all the problems in the allotted time, and then claim victory when they don't address each and every point.." my opponent failed to answer for....", it is simply salesman tricks and dishonesty. That is Craig.
WineisyourFriend 2 years ago
I honestly think that bringing conversation such as this (i.e. without shouting, without accusing, without throwing chairs and ad hominem [if I spelled this wrong correct me] attacks) makes it worthy of being posted. I'm rather tired of the bickering and prattle about youtube.
On that note I feel Thunderf00t did a lovely job as did Dawkins. Trying to find a "winner" in this is silly because they aren't fighting, they're -talking- like civilized creatures. Crazy notion, eh?
CandoLoses 2 years ago 2
I take it you view Dawkins as the authority figure here, and TFoot as a mere human. In that sense, you prove Dawkins point and is reduced to an ant in an ants nest.
stengevarsel 2 years ago
I always wondered why males of Semitic ethnic groups tend to grow a lot of facial hair
It doesn't make sense since they're mainly distributed from Ethiopia to the Middle East, awfully hot climates
odenskrigare 2 years ago
This is an excellent discussion ! Thanks for taking the time to do this thunderfoot.. !
55ella2007k 2 years ago 3
In God we trust
MrAssbaron 2 years ago
What about the intergalactic superbunny named Gus?
anoyingfly 2 years ago
why do you talk stupid, like all the atheists
do. Stupid people talk like that. I bet you think you made a clever remark. Huh.
no sir. Your stupidity shines through
MrAssbaron 2 years ago
Could you go ahead and explain why what was said was stupid?
derangius 2 years ago
Blasphemer!! He was cast out of the Milky way by the super elephant/creator of the universe named babaar.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
All hail lord babaar!
osaka35 2 years ago
classic... genetic explanation for religious beliefs.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
I believe studies actually shows that beards grow faster in hot weather, not cold.
tmtyler 2 years ago
@tmtyler
true, the same for finger/toe nails.
soundsliketruck 2 years ago
Well nature didn't intend for use to shave. So it would make sense that the beard would grow faster towards the end of summer or fall and grow slower in winter.
Being your body would be preparing you for winter, almost like a cat or dog where they shed in the spring and their coat becomes thick in the fall.
DrZaious 2 years ago
If beards were actually adaptations for dealing with the winter season in cold climates, wouldn't the ladies be sporting them too?
tmtyler 2 years ago 2
@tmtyler Short answer: No. Long answer: I am presuming that millions of years ago our ancestors found females with facial hair to be unattractive. Females of the species that did not have as much facial hair or none at all were chosen for breeding purposes. As for why and how the genes to turn on and off facial hair growth function in males or females is beyond my abilities to explain. Suffice to say that males didn't like females with hairy faces, so they didn't survive to breed another day.
jmaxwell2 2 years ago
Chimps have very little pronounced facial hair. It isn't that females were selected for *lack* of hair, but rather that males were selected with what looks suspiciously like pubic hair all around their mouths.
tmtyler 2 years ago
wow, i cant believe you're talking with richard dawkins. im so jealous. very good talk
thisscreensucks 2 years ago 2
They should have staged this in a pub. get the juke box on, wee game of darts, game of Pub Quiz on the machine in the pub. Deal Or No Deal, Bull's Eye.
heros2zeros 2 years ago
looks like this is at dawkins home?
Finiras 2 years ago
"Islam spread by the sword".....
Even if only a few hundred thousand (!) people were forced to 'accept' Islam on pain of death, justb think what that means. To force ANYONE to accept YOUR opinion on pain of death is reprehensible, barbaric and unforgiveable, whatever the creed being promulgated. Can you imagine the Theory of Gravity/Evolution etc being thus spread throughout the world. Nearly all religions have done this at some time. Why? Because religious people 'know'. Divine mission.
derek24hudson 2 years ago 4
in 'everything' i mean natural phenomenons.. thunders, earthquakes.. etc....i'm talking about the first 'religious' experiences of humans... of course we all need to make multiple researches on that, and a lot needs to be studied..i just wrote my guessings... i'll try to get the books u suggested and do some research :p i hope it will be fruitful..thanks again friend and happy new year!
datuna 2 years ago 2
Hey no problem, man and Happy New Year to you as well! If you want more info, you can also wiki "Egyptian Soul" and look at the concept of "Ba (b3)" and see what it says about the "Psyche". Also wiki "Shintoism" and read on how it wasn't a religion until Buddhism came along. Then wiki "Tsukumogami" and check out it's similarity to the Egyptian concept of "Ba".
DarkArckana 2 years ago
I hypothesize two things: Either A. Ancient cultures were able to naturally develop their psychic senses and observe the world around them. or B. Research "The Hundredth-Monkey Effect", which is only hypothetical, but I take all possibilities into consideration. Still, my experimentation with modernized reconstructionists versions of these techniques and practices lead me to believe that "A" is more probable.
DarkArckana 2 years ago
"psychic senses" - what's that? why not "akdjfhhasuauhf" senses? or why not just "senses" - it being all the word needed to describe....senses.
I think ancient cultures were not made by more evolved humans than me (don't know about you). but they had the same capacity of perception that i have.
transtlantic 2 years ago
You're absolutely correct! They are, plain and simply, "senses"! However, it's only because of the ways of the times that such a differentiating term is given. Had this natural development remained in tact, such distinctions wouldn't be necessary. However, there has developed a chasm in between the senses. This chasm is called "The Noosphere", and while it is beneficial, people must become aware of their senses in order to canalize them.
DarkArckana 2 years ago
Research "The Noosphere" it's rather fascinating.
"The Noosphere" what many occultists term "The Astral Plane", and it is the phenomenon responsible for fraudulent psychics and mediums. Many times an Occultist would think they've stumbled upon something, when it was just their imagination. This is where Zen practices and "Wu Wei Wu" come into play.
DarkArckana 2 years ago
Whenever we analyze the history of human cognition, we need to take into consideration that 1500 years of Church dominance has done damage to our cognition and our fundamental assumptions about the things organized religion claims as it's exclusive property. I, however, believe that organized religion is fraudulent by advocating an obfuscated and heavy adulterated style of once valuable teachings as their "specialty".
DarkArckana 2 years ago
I think you are watching and reading to much star wars jedi lore....
transtlantic 2 years ago
@transtlantic Lol George Lucas actually used a lot of Occult concepts when he was writing Star Wars. It was a fad back in the 60's and 70's. In fact, Isaac Bonewitz the author of "Real Magick" actually has a degree in Magick from Berkeley (class of '70). This was given as honorary, and thus is the only verifiable degree in Magick ever issued.
DarkArckana 2 years ago
@DarkArckana Occultists are people too, and we have professions as well. Many Occultists like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman are Occultists and use Occult incorporate Occult concepts in their Science Fiction works. "American Gods" was based on the Chaos Magick perspective on gods and spiritual beings made popular by Peter J. Carroll and Ray Sherwin, the founders of the IOT.
DarkArckana 2 years ago
@DarkArckana [cont] I also suggest looking into Alan Moore's modifications to the X-men Character "Scarlet Witch". Ultimately, there was no such thing as Chaos Magick, Wanda was just manipulating reality all along. This is one of the ways Chaos Magick is approached by some of its adherents. Also notice how her powers are based on mathematical calculations and probability. This is also another popular approach to Chaos Magick. Josh Wetzel, a well-known member of the IOT practices Magick this way.
DarkArckana 2 years ago
as i said...when you can actually do jedi tricks for real you can talk, until then, try put your feet down to the earth.
All that lore is cool and interesting ( i also read a lot about it) but it is not real. it's fantasy. it's entertaining, that's all.
transtlantic 2 years ago
doesn't mean that the occolt is anything real or that magick isn't just an illusion tricks performed by artists earning their trade.
Alan Moore and Neil are writers, not "occultists". they enjoy the lore, they don't believe as you do in the lore.
transtlantic 2 years ago
@transtlantic "... they don't believe as you do in the lore." I do not believe in the lore itself. That is to say, I do not believe that there's an actual "Promethea" or "Scarlet Witch". However, I understand the significance of the elements in the lore and how many of the elements parallel actual Occult practice. As for the term "Magick" the "K" was put at the end by Aleister Crowley to distinguish it from optical illusions. That would be spelled "Magic" without the "K".
DarkArckana 2 years ago
thing is... all "magik"/"magick"/"magic"...whatever... IS optical illusion, sound illusions, etc etc... by there is not such a thing as the supernatural. It's all fantasy. You may be fooled into a trick that's all. like all magicians know.
transtlantic 2 years ago
@transtlantic that's where experimenting comes in. Might I suggest doing some research on Chaos Magick? In fact, google in "IOT North America", go to their website and check out some of their videos. Josh Wetzel does a lecture called "Demystifying Magick". That approach to magick may make a little more sense to you.
DarkArckana 2 years ago
I've been wondering if maybe the ancient civilizations did have a better gene pool. Given that it probably took more brains and brawn to survive childhood without modern agriculture or clean water.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
they didn't.
They had a worst time than any of us in a modern country.
Life expectancy was lower than 35 years of age more than 3000 years ago. There were the mjority of the diseases that endured until 19th and even 20th century. Killing millions of people per year.
there were more accidents, more wars, more famine and complete misery.
that's why that every single individual that exists is the result of an astonishing fight for survival.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Not sure if you're talking to me or not.
Everything you said is true, but it is just expounding on my comment about clean drinking water and agriculture.
We doubled our life span from clean water and agriculture, mostly.
Not genes. My genes, for instance, would've been a tragedy 3000 years ago. NEar-sightedness and asthma. I may not have survived to reproduce. Near sightedness and common minor ailments were probably rarer in the gene pool 3000 years ago, and being a possible death sentence.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
you choose two desieases where the majority of the patients only manifest a seious phenotype of illness in later years...
asthma and near sightedness are worse in older age. this means that the genes for it might have existed for thousands of years already, but only now we suffer more from it, because we live longer.
clean water and agriculture? lol.... more like modern medical care - antibiotics, new therapeutics, etc etc.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Asthma is usually more severe in children due to smaller lungs.
My asthma was severe as a child. I was hospitalized 9 times for it. Not once since the age of 10. It's not a big problem now. Since I was talking about my own survival in my original comment, that's all I need to address.
FAR-sightedness is an old age problem. Near-sightedness is not so much. Unless you count 12 years old as old age. Don't you notice kids wear glasses?
Back to genes...you're proving my point.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
haha! wow thanks... i've got a lot of stuff to study on this holidays as i see :p ... :)
datuna 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't mention it, and if come across something I missed, please let me know. It would really help me out!
DarkArckana 2 years ago
2:25-2:55: I'm kinda disappointed Dawkins subscribes to the view that "Islam was spread by the sword". While it's true that many places where Islam is practiced, there were military conquests by Muslims but there are huge exceptions - Indonesia, coastal east Africa, Malaysia, west Africa, etc.
sextusloverlord 2 years ago
How did he manage to get Dawkins for a discussion ???
freethinkerdangerous 2 years ago
Hey everyone, TruthfulChristian here.
I changed my account because i realised I was being a dick and not making many friends. I now have a beard and will try my best to be as thunderf00tish as possible. First step, wear my sunday best around town being the prettiest girl i can be.
Thanks for understanding.
06llo 2 years ago 2
I loled
Surfking9000 2 years ago
Why the hell does everyone need subtitles? Is everyone really that illiterate?
bsleffel 2 years ago
turn treble at max and its audible the quality isnt bad the trebble is to low
Akirilus 2 years ago
Subtitles please? And yes, I copy-pasted this to all T-D videos.
aKindofHeart 2 years ago
crap. two people with the same ideals going on on an inaudible video,
bicnarok 2 years ago
@bicnarok
I can't even understand what thunderf00t is saying.
TruthfulChristian 2 years ago
That's because the Holy Ghost is covering your ears. At the same time, the Father is covering your eyes. The son is sitting below, giving you sexual pleasure.
sextusloverlord 2 years ago 2
6:00 "... tsunami relief and things like that. That's not easily explained on a Darwinian basis."
Unless charitable donation is a display of a high social status, something that will attract females or otherwise allow for a person to promulgate their genes.
SourcesAreEverything 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thunder f00t trying to act all cool like he doesn't jerk off to Dawkins picture every night. And Dawkins is like who is this stinky hippie looking at my bulge.... He I will do anything to get Thunder F00t to stop calling him. Dawkins probably caught him getting a sniff of his old man tightly Whites after "This is not the Bathroom"
SuperSharko 2 years ago
Oh you christians are so cute with your ad hominems.
wretcherwretch 2 years ago
Comment removed
SuperSharko 2 years ago
wow SuperSharko, that's quite a detailed fantasy lol. What a gay imagination you have :-P
SourcesAreEverything 2 years ago 3
@SourcesAreEverything
This video fails.
TruthfulChristian 2 years ago
@TruthfulChristian. Did you know your user name is an oxymoron?
stevenweir76 2 years ago 6
Thanks TFoot! :)
Imbrickle 2 years ago
what's he talking about? i just debunked this thunderf00t f00l
TruthfulChristian 2 years ago
who is this incoherent tard and why is he wasting dawkins time with theories he came up with while on the shiitter.
tub05241 2 years ago
is it just me, or is thunderfoot a complete fucking retard.
i could have easily given a better interview than this.
can i get an amen????
fuck
sylviabombs15 2 years ago 2
Amen , the lack of articulation pisses me off and sometimes he appears to lecture Dawkins a little bit.
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
They're intellectual equals
Stop whining
odenskrigare 2 years ago
They're not by any means intellectual equals.
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
They're both very intelligent in somewhat different ways
They both have good points to make
Stop acting like a chonger, demanding respectful silence from tf00t
odenskrigare 2 years ago
@odenskrigare
You're a thunderf00t drone. You will obviously agree with anything he says.
TruthfulChristian 2 years ago
I don't agree with everything he says
For one thing I'm more individualist than he is
Stop projecting your Xian hive mentality onto me
odenskrigare 2 years ago
Well it's an interview with Richard Dawkins and most of it is Thunderf00t telling Dawkins about evolution.
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
It looks more like an equal discussion
As well it should be
And btw there are a lot of unsettled issues in evolutionary biology so you can't just dogmatically claim that Dawkins has all the better ideas, when on the nitty-gritty details there are a lot of researchers who disagree with him
You'd be especially hard-pressed to say that claims in evolutionary psychology are set in stone
Also, you're making me embarrassed to call myself a freethinker; please stop
odenskrigare 2 years ago
Be as embarrassed as you want you pretentious bastard.
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
I don't see how acknowledging the limits of our knowledge on a given issue is pretentious
Could it be that you don't know what 'pretentious' means too?
You are as fucked in the head as some creationists
odenskrigare 2 years ago
I'd make a fairly grand bet that my vocabulary is vaster than yours so don't climb onto a high horse of superior intellect and try to patronise me.
I'm not fucked in the head and I won't make the same assertion about you because it most likely isn't true.
This interview isn't great and Thunderf00t takes forever to finish each one of points, which aren't stellar to start with.
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago 2
Having a vast vocabulary isn't terribly useful when you don't know what the words in it mean
And really idk whether your vocabulary is larger than mine: the Germanic languages I've studied have informed my use of English to some degree, and then there's also the specialized lexica I've acquired for linguistics (my major), neuroscience (my intended grad school major), but also math, philosophy, programming, logic, etc.
So really bro idk maybe you should reconsider your bet
odenskrigare 2 years ago