Understanding Genetics - Daniel Dennett Interview 1

[BannorPhil]

Uploader: Couldn't you have split this video up into even more, smaller parts? 2 minutes each is WAY too long!!!

[sunsplash1980]

God, if it exists it would have no intelligece. Inteligence doesn't mean anything except to people. Intelligence is just a way to describe a things potential. Aquinas says God has no potential, he is pure actuality.

[sunsplash1980]

God if it exists would have no intelligece. Inteligence doesn't mean anything except to people.

[PaGaNM0nK]

some people argue that this man is the worst of the four horsemen... but anyone who has read his work should know quite the contrary

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

@PaGaNM0nK Yes Dennett is a fine philosopher. He also has spend time studying science, to not only study neurology and the brain but also to learn more about evolution. Dennett's book on religion takes a very objective view of religion, he thinks that it's a product of evolution & that it can be studied & explained. Whether you agree with Dennet or not, it's hard not to like him. His book on religion contrast sharply with Hitchens & Harris who take a much more aggressive approach to religion.

[thyran]

@PaGaNM0nK

Indeed, Daniel is the only one who is actually a genius, a problem solver and a thinker. Others say and keep repeating the same things. I have little interest in what the other three have to say, because chances are, I already know what they're going to say.

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

Actually, you know. They should really try that. take the florensesis bones and magnify all the DNA they can find and try to sequence as much as possible and compare, much like the T. rex genome project

[offspring0777]

This guy is my hero.

[karlkarlkarl1234]

Darwin's idea is not the be all and end all as the general person thinks, in fact most people don't even know what it is but will viciously defend it, lol. They will just say "survival of the fittest" and blurt out some eugenics based superiority nonsense with no genetic basis.

Also, Darwinism doesn't explain the 30,000 y.o missing link to the homo erectus & sapiens, and evolution can't explain this, as it relies on much larger geological time scales. 30,000 years is *nothing* in that realm.

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

Your numbers are probably wrong, 30,000 years ago we had pretty much modern homo sapiens.

I don't think Erectus persisted. I mean it's not impossible. Nothing says that a species has to go extinct after a while.

if your going to make something up, do some research and at least try to come up with something that would actually contradict evolutionary theory.

[karlkarlkarl1234]

@LeopardFrogPilboxhat

I study genetics, so yeah it's fair to say I've done the research.

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

We weren't talking about genetics. We were talking about paleontology.

30,000 years ago there was cro magnon homo sapiens like the ones found in that cave in france.

At that point the clade had already split from common ancestors of homo erectus and homo sapiens hundreds of thousands of years ago.

So what exactly is the nature of your claim

[karlkarlkarl1234]

Keep in mind i am a great proponent of evolution theory.

I'm just saying it's crazy how how H.rhodesiensis evolved into sapiens in about 150,000 years. Then you have anomalies like H.floresiensis that lived only 10,000 years ago and were essentially 25kg midgets. Not to mention the pygmies of Australia.

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

Subspecies, sister taxa.

These are widely seen phenomenon. When K selected species like hominids get onto a tiny island, they just might experience island dwarfism with such a quantitative shift that from skeletons they would seem to be distinct.

There's really no evidence and it certainly wouldn't be unprecidented that if floresiensis could have interbred with homo sapiens, if not actually just being a subset.

I don't know. Maybe they can recover some DNA

[sinakazemian]

What is he talking about? What evidence? In fact the evidence shows that most mutation destroys the DNA. That's what we see in nature and that's what the facts show.

[credman]

Mutations tend to be harmful to the organism, not to the DNA. If the DNA were destroyed, then the organism would never be born in the first place. Even if less than .01% of mutations are safe and beneficial, that's enough to result in evolutionary progress over millions of generations.

[sinakazemian]

Not true. Mutations can alter the DNA and destroys parts of it. That's why some people are born with defects. Born blind, or without arms and so on. However some mutation can be beneficial if it's mutation with less impact like colour of the organism or shape or size and stuff like that (micro-evolution). However, there is no evidence that mutation can build up new usefull information in the DNA. That's the same as saying that what I've just written can be created by coincidence.

[credman]

I think we're (in part) just arguing about semantics. Technically, the DNA isn't "destroyed," even when sections of it are deleted--it's just changed. Destroy implies that it's harmed somehow, but the DNA doesn't care what happens to it. It's still perfectly good DNA. It's the organism, not the DNA, that is harmed (usually) by the changes.

But that's just one kind of mutation--other mutations duplicate segments of DNA, or move them around, or change them. Any of these can be harmful.

[sinakazemian]

you have to look at DNA as code that's perfect and needs no altering. Therefor every mutation will be dangerous and unwanted because most of mutation is not beneficial to the organism. And the small percentage that is beneficial is only benefical in the form of micro-evolution.

[poolerboy0077]

Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. In conclusion you're full of shit.

[sinakazemian]

i've already mentioned some small mutation can be benificial but it will never be able to build the entire code, so you just proved that you're full of shit and not me.

[poolerboy0077]

Changes will occur in small increments over time.

[sinakazemian]

you can believe that if you want to.

[poolerboy0077]

Thank you

[credman]

As for macro-evolution, evolution is lazy and only cares about the short term, so once a species starts evolving in a particular direction (like insects evolving compound eyes), it's like a rock rolling down a hill--it's always going to be more beneficial in the short term to build on what you have than reverse-engineer everything back to a point where you can evolve something better (like human eyes). That's why insects will never evolve human eyes and frogs will never fly.

[hydrolito]

Their is something called a flying frog that doesn't fly like a bird but can glide through the air short distances. It lives much of it's life in trees and can be seen on wikipedia.

[TheLilJay]

NO prove at all for darwins theories yet.

never found a half man/ half ape so far.

all the "evidence" they found was proven fake

[CathodePhonics]

Cosmic

[izzyidl1]

fake or false?

[acr08807]

They found it in thev 1920's. It's called Australopithecus. Google it.

[melmel042095130]

that was still proven false

[adam28r7r7]

Actually jay they have found evidence and some cases they were not fake you should read a little more. Because you no so stunningly little about the biological concept.

[Vegetablesaregood]

Darwin > God

[TheBlueRose7]

Abandon Genetics(something may go wrong)???

[izzyidl1]

im going to major in genetics and push it into a new level and u people will thank me

[TheBlueRose7]

My comment was in jest. We now have an administration that seems willing to allow science to develop cures for what ails us. Perhaps people are just tired of waiting for "The God" to actually do something, for that matter , anything.. Bet wishes and good luck in your studies.

UCSD rocks.

[rmeddy1]

Isn't it just Rationalism Vs Empiricism?

[Lovearth1]

Geez, He looks like a living corpse. Is he the genetic future, the evolution ? This guy is an inferior genetic entity. Human cut off the symbiosis of cosmologic LAW. SEPARATE the soul from the corpse in a heresy. Is the thruth sense of the existence is technology, politic, gold, or Deus mythology ? (Remember that a Deus can't create himself). That's why human IS THE inferior life form.

[mrpossibilities]

Hehehe, such a pretty comment you make. It almost sounds like you're trying to hard to earn people's hate.

[FakeCup]

what are you even talking about... idiot

[saintkamus14]

You're dumb.

[Mjhavok]

The Future of Science Conference in Venice, Italy September 2006? This couldn't have been long before he went into hospital.

Thank Goodness!

[BobHardy1]

Daniel Dennett is not a scientist, he's a philopsopher. Why should his scientific opinions, or his claim to know the future of science, hold any more validity than the opinion of any other college educated non-scientist?

[Mjhavok]

Gregor Mendel was a monk.

[BobHardy1]

Thank you for sharing that piece of information with me. I can only reply in kind

Adolph Hitler was an artist

[Mjhavok]

Your statement is irrelevant douchebag. You said why should people pay attention to Dennett if he isn't a scientists. Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics and he was a monk with no scientific training. Your mention of Hitler is not only irrelevant but stupidly so.

[BobHardy1]

I didn't say (post) what you claim I said (posted)

Your say your "Interests and Hobbies: Science, Technology, Internet, Reason, Rationality, Philosophy, Literature, Learning." !!!

You flatter yourself.

It seems to me that you cannot wait to be discourteous.

Mendal studied at the University of Vienna returning to his abbey in 1853 as a teacher, of physics.

[Mjhavok]

I flatter myself by being interested in stuff? I am being discourteous? You mentioned Hitler for some unknown strange reason. I mentioned that Gregor Mendel was a monk because you criticise Dennett for being a philosopher. Dennett describes himself as "an autodidact — or, more properly, the beneficiary of hundreds of hours of informal tutorials on all the fields that interest me, from some of the world's leading scientists."

[Mjhavok]

If you had read any of Dennetts book you would have the answer to this question yourself but they have plenty of science in them although he is a philosopher.

As for his opinions being any more valid than a college educated professor I don't know, ask the people who made the video. He is a famous public intellectual and his interests are in philosophy related to biology(evolution), the mind and science.

[Mjhavok]

"Why should his scientific opinions, or his claim to know the future of science, hold any more validity than the opinion of any other college educated non-scientist?" He doesn't claim to know the future of science. That was the name of the conference he was probably invited too.

[BobHardy1]

Cool

I have been reading Dennett since the 1980's, and I do not criticize him for being a philosopher in my posting -- I question the hierarchical position of his discourse re hard science.

I will attempt to elaborate - here goes!

[BobHardy1]

I will attempt to put my question in another way. If science (that is Modern Physics) 'explains' (or is capable of explaining) everything tomorrow, or in the next thousand years (a position I would cautiously endorse) then I would argue that it must be the LANGUAGE of modern physics (and not philosophy) that will do this, and the most essential component of this scientific discourse is mathematics.

[BobHardy1]

These would include Dennett's explanations; simplifications; or clarifications; etc and would be produced largely for those people with little or no grasp of the necessary mathematics.

[BobHardy1]

Professional physicists have little need for these philosophical metaphors because they already 'understand' what's going on due to their grasp of those mathematical tools that they consider to be essential in order to claim that one had any understanding at all of contemporary physics.

[WonkyDoodle]

"Unintelligent matter creates intelligent matter"

Erm...ok

[Mjhavok]

More like unintelligent matter forms intelligent matter. It doesn't exactly create it. That would indicate intent.

[WonkyDoodle]

STFU moron.

[Mjhavok]

Nice rebuttal.

Eat any books lately?

[WonkyDoodle]

Thanks.

[WonkyDoodle]

No seriously shithead, what do you define by "intelligent" and "unintelligent"? And why is it more likely that unintelligent matter forms intelligent matter?

[Mjhavok]

Intelligent = me

Unintelligent = you

Done with you now.

[WonkyDoodle]

No no no. Its like this:

Intelligent = God

Unintelligent = You

Thus, God created your sorry little ass, and so intelligent matter created unintelligent matter.

Now you can piss off.

[Mjhavok]

It is simpler. Look up Occam's razor. It slices, it dices.

Merry Christmas.

[WonkyDoodle]

And what's so simple about believing intelligent matter was a result of unintelligent matter?

[Mjhavok]

It is more simple that positing an even more complex intelligent being. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

[WonkyDoodle]

If you cant form properly spelt and constructed sentences, I cant understand you, moron.

Were you drunk when you posted that you twat?

[Mjhavok]

Ever heard of a typo. Your stupid grammar bully attitude reveals your inferiority complex.

[Particulatematter]

meh it is true that placing mental abilities and the skill @ grammar as one and the same is shortsighted to say the least. Needing to flame people based on spelling and grammar doesnt mean someone is dumb. Some people are speaker not spellers and so they instinctively type the phonetically, as long as sense can be made and the thought is conveyed the job is done, i would have to say those that cant decipher meaning from abstract sources such as fragmented grammar are perhaps ignorant.

[WonkyDoodle]

Seriously you wanker, wtf did that last comment?

shithead

[Mjhavok]

What an intellectual.

[tranczic]

ive never seen god. uve never seen god. human=dumb

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"Sikhism 4 examlpe supports evolution and does not ask for followers to convert others - rather it promotes religious freedom!"

Terrific, then they'll have absolutely no problem with myself being an atheist and believing in rationality not faith.

[therealgeeza]

Daniel Dennett's not the pheasant plucker, he's the pheasant plucker's mate and he's only plucking pheasants coz the pheasant pluckers late. Say this with your eyes closed 5 times and then push Alt F4. (Clearly, this message is an evolutionary dead-end)

[BlissfulKnowledge]

Dennett rules.

[amitsmom]

An issue with Christianity is that ppl r finding inconsistencies in the faith and statements that contradict proven science ie. evolution. Consequently ppl feel compelled to atheism! Wait...there are more logical/practical faiths. Sikhism 4 examlpe supports evolution and does not ask for followers to convert others - rather it promotes religious freedom!