Thanks for this T-rex video (and all the rest); I won't press "Like" again cos I did last time. Wish I could make videos like this. And can't wait to watch Vol 17 again! Really admire your effort.
Readers may be interested to know that Mr. Gaede is still currently on FBI and CIA watch lists. He also "may have intent to defraud." He is a convicted felon who now practices freely from his Argentina location.
Notice that Gaede never mentions the many other scientists now challenging conventional thought.
This con man is not even close to being the most original or to having the most comprehensive theory, yet he takes all the credit himself for being the only voice of reason.
He puts on his little show here and never acknowledges the many others out there whose work is far better than his.
Folks, this is not Gaede's domain. He didn't start this, and he's one of the weakest in this field.
"Gaede never mentions... other scientists... challenging conventional thought... many others out there whose work is far better"
.
Science doesn't care who you choose to believe, idiot tax. Which theory YOU subscribe to is your personal business and doesn't concern Science.
.
But if there are 'better' scientists and physicists out there, it would have helped your case if you would've suggested some names and websites to your audience, tax. So far you've made an unsubstantiated statement.
Gaede is not even a scientist. He is sad deluded crackpot. He doesn't publish any scientific papers, only a childish web page. He has some novel ideas but he lacks a basic understanding the scientific method and is incapable of building a coherent set of ideas. He loves to lecture everyone about what he thinks science is, but no one is listening.
Bill Gaede is a communist Argentine spy who stole and provided the Soviet Bloc with secret American technical information during the cold war. Later, he stole and sold Intel’s proprietary state-of-the-art Pentium process to China and Iran. Gaede was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in the United States. He served a term of 33 months in prison, after which he was deported back to Argentina, where he now works as a disinformation specialist.
1. "Nothing equals nothing. You know "exactly" what I mean"
.
You make profound statements, blue!
.
Earlier you claimed that "something must have always existed". You defined 'something' as 'us and the universe'. Pursuant to YOUR definition, 'us and the universe' have always existed and were never created. There is no room for creation in a theory where 'something' has ALWAYS existed.
2. But now you make a stunning statement: that 'nothing equals nothing'. You reason that I should understand this statement (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). You're quite philosopher, blue.
.
"you know its logical"
.
They should preserve your brain for posterity, blue. It must be unique.
4. "I'm now using my spare time to argue with nonsense"
.
Well, you raised the issue of God and Creation. If you believe that God and Creation are nonsense, why did you bring them up? I thought you wanted to get to the bottom of where we or the U came from?
.
But you're right. You shouldn't waste your valuable time on God and Creation.
So let's get this straight, blue. You said, and I quote, "Something must come from something" and replacing now, you meant... "US and this universe must come from US and this universe." That's deep!
.
"nothing can only create"
,
Nothing creates??? That's even deeper. You are profound thinker, blue! It's over my head!
"Nothing can come from nothing. Something must come from something...The universe is something. The universe, something, must have come from something. That something must be Above time/space... God"
.
If as YOU say, something must come from something and as YOU say, God is something, where did this something come from? From what other 'something'?
.
Of course, it would help if you defined the words something and nothing.
@bgasede wow I've just looked You up on Wikipedia and it turns out you're quite a celebrity. a former spy for Soviet Union. It says you come from Argentine. Many surprising facts. And yet you bother to respond ordinary people on youtube :) What a social, interesting person.
@bgaede You look like Fred Flinston but older i like the comedy in Your videos.
obviously You realise that non of what you said about the food chains being destroyed contradicts the fact that mass extinctions are in fact caused by sudden events like astronomic collisions or climate change in conncection with habitat loss.
1. "non of what you said about the food chains being destroyed contradicts the fact that mass extinctions are in fact caused by sudden events like astronomic collisions or climate change"
.
How did the smart collision SELECT the older families of plants and animals and left the new families to thrive? Why did the intelligent asteroid do away with the gymnosperms and leave the angiosperms alone?
2. Why did the smart ET bollide selectively take out the calcareous nanoplankton-ammonite-mosasaur food chain and spare the sharks and crocs? That's a mighty 'bright' comet if you ask me!
@bgaede what are you talking about? There are plenty of older families still present. Gymnosperms not only didn't go extinct but are still abundant. Your argument is totally flawed. The event that caused mass extinction paved the way for some new diversity afterwards. Sharks survived because they vary in sizes which enabled them to eat less during hard times. The same goes for crocs which BTW are not living fossils (google: "BBCnews Crocs dispel living fossil myth ").
The event??? An 'event' caused the mass extinction??? Sounds more like the 'event' brainwashing caused you to be hardwired that way. Old habits die hard.
Agreed! The point was that the dynasty is what did not die. The point is that the sharks and crocs survived the K-T. They were not part of the dino's and sea reptile's food chain.
.
Only idiots believe that an asteroid caused an impact winter. You have to be a gullible moron to accept such a ludicrous theory!
@bgaede lol it is not written in the link you gave me but even if it was how does that relate to anything?
First you argued against asteroid impact as the cause of mass extinction 65mln years ago. Then you suggested that gymnosperms are extinct, which is obviously not true as gymnosperm forests cover huge part of the globe today. I'm not sure what are you trying to prove
1. "it is not written in the link you gave me but even if it was how does that relate to anything? you suggested that gymnosperms are extinct"
.
You read quite superficially, ks. I never said that gymnosperm went extinct. In fact, the link I gave you makes it plain: the gymnosperm -- the plants on which the dinos relied on -- had greatly diminished by the end of the K.
In Science, we don't prove anything. In Science, we only explain. Again, you seem to be a very careless reader.
.
The KT mass ext like the one in progress now was the result of an INEVITABLE economic collapse. The mechanism of a mass ext is the overturning of the ecological pyramid, The economy of Mother Nature is NOT money, finances and stock markets. Her economy consists of food.
3. When a grand family of animals (amphibians, dinos, mammals) have been around for a while, become numerous and sedentary, they get used to the diseases and plants in their regions. Like all animal species, plant species also undergo a cycle from cradle to grave. Their cycles, however, are much longer. Whereas animal species last in the millions and 10s of m of years, plant species last 100s of m of years. But they do eventually go... INEVITABLY!
4. When they go, the animals stuck to that green carpet go with them: SUDDENLY. It cannot be in any other way. A mass ext is the disintegration of an entire food chain: ALWAYS the old guard. No exceptions! The new species of animals, tied to the newer, incoming plants which are rapidly displacing the old guard, become the new rulers, the new caretakers of Eden.
5. Cycad Monument in South Dakota is a case in point. The petrified forest was not comprised of cycads. It was comprised of cycad-like Cycadeoidaceae and Williamsoniaceae. The dinosaurs which depended on them missed this forest, which remained practically intact until the 19th C. The cycadeoids died a couple of m y before the KT line. No comet, asteroid or meteorite struck them down!
6. Certainly, any dinos that fed on them had to disappear when these types of plants were gone. The cycadeoids had been around for most of the Jurassic. They were the archetypical plants of the Jurassic. Most animals living in the Jurassic evolved with them and relied almost exclusively on them.
7. The idiots of Paleontology have come up with an antidote: all species switch from lettuce to pine leaves when the lettuce disappears.
.
Yeah? Tell that to the Triceratopses!
.
In the Hell Creek region where Tri and T-Rex made their last stand, the ratio of Angios to Gymnos had dropped to an alarming 10 to 1!!! That's what the link I gave indicates objectively. If you think that the Tri decided at the last moment to switch from cycads to magnolias, then you're off your rocker, ks.
8. Nevertheless, the Q would remain: Why did the Alvarezs' asteroid SELECTIVELY wipe out the gymnos and leave the angios?
.
Likewise, what disappeared in the benthic waters were not the INCOMING crocs and sharks (and new types of fish). What disappeared were the ANCIENT food chains: mosasaur, ammonite, calcareous nanoplankton, diatoms, foraminifera, etc: the LARGE plankton (i.e., Cope's Law), The INCOMING small fries survived.
9. The Paleo was the Age of Trilobites. The Meso was the Age of Ammonites. And the Ceno is the Age of Krill.
.
The krill is on its way out, and so are the LARGE animals that depend almost exclusively on it: whales, penguins, seals, etc, Their time is up. They've been around for too long and have gotten too used to their hamburgers. That entire food chain will undoubtedly disintegrate in the mass ext we are about to witness.
10. Will the 'comet' that kills the whales and krill also kill the spiders and roaches on land? Will the 'impact winter' that causes mass ext according to the idiots of Paleo eliminate all the insects?
.
Probably not. We built our highways and skyscrapers so that the insects can grow big (Cope's Law again), crawl thru them and live a decent life when we're gone.
@bgaede how do we know the explanation is a correct model of nature? if the universe exists in an objective sense then we would expect it to behave in a certain way that is not based on our preconceived notions of it. the only way of knowing how nature behaves is to run a test.
Science doesn't deal with knowledge! In Science, we merely explain. What you choose to believe is your personal business and doesn't concern Science. There are no opinions in Science. Opinions (subjectivity) are the exclusive province of religion. Science is strictly objective: "One explanation for this phenomenon is..."
.
"the only way of knowing...
... that God exists is to be raped by the priest!"
Both atheism and theism are irrational. The scientific version is that belief plays no role in existence. Existence is not a matter of personal opinion.
The only purpose of evidence is to persuade the jury and for the religious man to declare Truth through proof. There is no room for evidence in Science.
.
"men who don't believe"
.
In Science, we don't believe in existence. In Science, we hypothesize it. What sense does it make to say that you believe in the existence of THIS chair? If you don't believe, does the chair disappear? Hopefully, if God exists, the non-believer will not wish 'Him' away.
@12345678901234567844 Nonsense - a trip through semantics - your words are an attempt at wisdom but are full of silliness - so is science full of beliefs, presuppositions and faith in negatives until proven positives - therefor closed-mindedness instead of open-mindedness - even in the face of the direction 'facts' point them. Not all of course, only those that claim 'there is no God' definitively, when that statement cannot be evidenced either way.
You might then say, "... so do the scientists that believe in God", and I would agree But at least they are looking in the direction of the scientific evidence/hypotheses if you wish, and not against it as do those who 'begin' with a negative hypotheses that points away from the discoveries already made.
Wait, what? The cause of mass extinction is not an asteoroid (guess he meant meteoroid) and not global warming, but mass starvation because plants died? Well, what killed the plants? Change of climate? May be?
The animals did. And that's what's going to happen to our species.
.
If an ET came to Earth after the mass extinction that is going to claim Man, he would discover that wheat, corn, etc., vanished at the same time as humans.
.
Why?
.
Because we will eat everything in site until there is no more. A mass extinction is the result of the disappearance of entire families of plants. The families of animals that are dependent on them disappear with them.
2. It is well established that gymnosperms such as cycads had practically disappeared by the end of the Cretaceous. By then, the angiosperm outnumbered them 10 to 1.
@bgaede not completely arguing with you i agree with you point eventually the gene pool will become so small that there isnt enough valid dna to create a human as we know it, but being from the current generation i have to respectfully disagree with your semi valid theory
it may happen but not for a very long time
and hopefully at that point humans have evolved to a higher place in the multiverse
or at least figured out a way to keep our species alive without the use of breeding
1. "the gene pool will become so small that there isnt enough valid dna to create a human... your semi valid theory... it may happen but not for a very long time"
.
This is not the main theory. The theory is that there is no other category beyond Services in our global economy other than unemployment. When unemployment reaches a critical point, the economy collapses.
2. When the econ collapses, the agri corps have no more incentives to produce or deliver food to the cities. Humans die massively of starvation. (Vid 17).
.
"humans have evolved to a higher place in the multiverse"
.
Humans have evolved as far as they can. We are as perfect as can be.
.
And there is no such thing as a multiverse except in the religion of General Relativity.
3. "your theory is unproven just like all theories"
.
Hopefully! In Science, we don't prove. In Science, we explain. What you choose to believe is your personal business and doesn't concern Science.
.
But I should clarify that the extinction of humans is not a theory. A theory is an explanation and we can only explain a consummated event. Hopefully, the extinction of humans hasn't happenED yet.
4. The extinction of humans is a guess. Some regard it as an intelligent guess; others not so much. Where extinction becomes a theory is when you can explain why ancient species disappeared. The mechanism I am proposing becomes a theory when applied to the dinos of the K-T or the synapsids of the Permian.
Also, plants can't be just niches in themselves, they need niches of their own, they don't succeed just by magic. A plant of one kind won't just succeed over another because mother nature wills it to, there has to be a change in the environment.
2. "assumes herbivores are... incapable of changing the kind of plant they eat. Even over the millions of years"
.
It works in reverse. Towards the end of an extended period such as the Mesozoic, animals SPECIALIZE rather than DIVERSIFY in their diets. In the last stretch, T-Rex depended almost exclusively on Triceratops which depended almost exclusively on Cycads.
3. Why would Triceratops be changing its diet over the last millions of years if it still had Cycads to munch on? Do you begin eating pine cones while you still have hamburgers at McDonalds, or do you try pine cones after there's nothing left to eat? People in early Soviet Russia ate the bark off of trees in desperation!
4. "A plant of one kind won't just succeed over another because mother nature wills it to, there has to be a change in the environment."
.
I thought a change of plants WAS a change in the environment??? I mean, if at one time you had palm trees and a few million years later you have pine trees in the same region, I suspect that your landscape has changed a little. Isn't that a change in your 'environment'?
6. c. The nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc, cycles vary over the course of millions of years because there is a symbiotic relationship with the plants (including phytoplankton). For instance, if a new species of plants that fixes more nitrogen is expanding across the planet, there will be a change in the nitrogen cycle in their favor.
1. "shortages, there would be a massive selection pressure to be able to eat the other kinds of plants"
.
Mass extinctions don't happen that way. They happen at the very end. The entire cycle is...
.
A very general type of animals (e.g., amphibians, dinos, mammals) expand as the plants they thrive on expand in numbers and diversify. This process lasts for a 100m years or so. The animals grow big and specialize (Cope's Law). Many fall by the wayside in local background extinctions.
2. New plants now come into the picture. The old order contracts. The old TYPES of animals can no longer diversify because the niches are fading. If some types adapt to the new plants, they will evolve into something else over time anyways. They are changing something very radically in their lives: what they eat ("You are what you eat"). Most species will simply die by attrition.
3. Towards the very end, we have few species of ancient plants and animals. Ancient species are very tough, nothing kills them. They had eons to adapt to everything. Plants developed poisons or spikes to drive away most animals. The herbivores developed defensive tools against predators and have become essentialy immune to endemic diseases that would have killed them in the past. The predators developed offensive weapons. Yet they are all remnants of a dying empire. Their time has come.
4. Large herbivores (sometimes only one or two remain locally) expand in numbers. They are living their golden age. Unfortunately, they are doing so just when the forests they relied upon are turning from ocean to lake to puddle. The large herbivores are unwittingly destroying what's left of their own habitat. The large predators expand in response to the availability of more food. So both herbivores and predators are expanding just when the total numbers of plants they feast upon are declining.
5. There is a crossover point where herbivores exceed their carrying capacity and predators do likewise shortly after. Large, specialized herbivores which have been built over millions of years cannot suddenly switch their diets any more than you can switch from lettuce to pine leaves overnight. They have more and more trouble finding food and liquidate their last reserves. The large, specialized predators follow suit.
6. Man has specialized in his eating habits. He's become perfect, much like T-Rex in his own way. We are essentially immune to diseases (we don't die of diseases any more), and eat mostly a handful of meats and a handful of grains and beans. The strategic problem is that we deliberately grow these vittles. Once the agri corps stop planting/harvesting, we cannot overnight switch to eating the bark off of trees. Our eco pyramid has suddenly overturned and we have the many chasing whatever is left.
We can eat whatever does eat the bark of trees. Humans are omnivores, and we can make pointed sticks, bows & arrows, and flaming torches, with no technological base. Unless you're positing that the next shift in the ecosystem (which humanity essentially controls) will produce animals that we can't kill, cook and eat? That would be impressive.
Are we talking superintelligent planet-of-the-apes gorillas?
2. "the fact that the other plants exist at all, millions of years before they manage to take over the world, is selection pressure to eat them"
.
If someone crosses the line, that species turns into a new one. Most continue with their food sources. It is not an issue of scarcity in the sense that there is nothing to eat and so you must change your eating habits.
3. It's an issue where grass takes over what used to be trees after the dinos peeled the trees to the bone and a new species of long necks cannot now evolve because there is in fact NO selection PRESSURE! There are no new types of trees that would allow a franchise to develop. We have a new type of plant altogether which the long necks cannot switch to overnight. As far as they are concerned, those grasses are weeds!
No. A whole ecosystem like the T-Rex found at the end Cretaceous: nothing big enough to keep them alive. What will we hunt after all the farm animals are slaughtered in the first couple of weeks, many of them rotting in the fields? What will you eat once the last veggies are ripped from the ground? Weeds? Pine cones?
7. And how will you protect yourself from that neighbor of yours who has a gun, hasn't eaten for two days, and realizes that it's you or him? Will you share your last carrot with him and bribe him to help you on your next hunt? Will he walk in front of you or behind you?
Okay, point taken. If somehow farming itself collapses, we probably won't have anything to eat because there's massively more population than could be supported by the ecosystem, and so that ecosystem would probably die. I wasn't considering the world population, i was just picturing a similar ecological process to the kind you say killed the dinosaurs.
2. But there must be, because you start with a population that lives on a large area, and (as with most animal populations) they continue to reproduce as much as they can, and then you go to a smaller area. That must lead to starvation.
1. Bill: "Animal radiation ONLY occurs when plants expand their empires, not when they are contracting."
.
Ev: "why"
.
Contraction implies that the plants have been around for a while and new plants are displacing them. This happens only after millions of years. Therefore, all the animals that got used to the old regime are stuck with it. They have specialized and grown big. They have also become sedentary and adapted to endemic diseases.
2. Now the plant kingdom on which they rely begins to contract in species and in numbers. Why would a line of animals used to these types of foods for millions of years, with stomachs and digestive systems designed for these plants, suddenly switch to radically new lines of plants?
3. We have fewer and fewer niches. As species of large animals disappear in background extinctions, they are not replaced because there are no new niches to fill. Why would the old order radiate when their world is collapsing?
4."animal populations... continue to reproduce as much as they can"
.
BULLSHIT! You make the same error all 'experts' make. You make no provision for density dependent birth rates. You should read up on it before uttering nonsense.
5. The notion just about everyone has that animals spit out litter irresponsibly and wait for Mother Nature to kill those who she has no food for is grossly misconceived. MN doesn't work at the death end, but primarily on the birth end of the cycle...
.
youstupidrelativist com/08Ext/05Demog/04Density html
4. If individual A reproduces as much as it possibly can, and idividual B doesn't, more of individual A's genes enter the ecosystem. I'm not sure if it's even possible for group selectionism to come into being, and continue to exist. Just answer me this, how can not breeding as much as possible, when everyone else is, increase your relative proportion of genes?
3. "how can not breeding as much as possible, when everyone else is, increase your relative proportion of genes?"
.
When everyone else is???
.
I don't see anyone breeding in my city. Ask a girl of 20 if she is willing to have 10 children and she'll tell you to fuck off! Most don't even want to have 1, and those that do say that they'll have the 1st one after preparing themselves for their careers or until they find the perfect blue prince that doesn't turn into a frog after the first kiss.
4. But more ridiculous is your insinuation that there is a competition to increase your proportion of genes in the general population. It's all that brainwashing they did to you in school and that YOU take for granted.
.
Will you know who your great great great grandchildren will be?
.
So who cares about gene pool today? That's why reproductive sex has given way to recreational sex!
@bgaede 4. Okay, now try not assuming humans are human evolution personified.
There is a competition, in that increasing your proportion of genes in the general population increases your proportion of genes in the general population. It's much easier to say the genes, or the individuals, are "competing", than to be insanely pedantic like that. Maybe you should read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". It explains a lot about evolution.
"There is a competition, in that increasing your proportion of genes in the general population increases your proportion of genes in the general population."
.
You talk as though this was a race or rally, as if we all deliberately try to put more genes into the pool. King of Genes?
@bgaede That's strange, because that's literally the opposite to what I was trying to get across, that individuals don't, and don't need to, give a crap whether their genes take over the population of the distant future.
@bgaede 3. The very first lifeform, almost certainly the simplest possible replicator, would not have had a density-dependant birth rate.
Thus, all its descendants would have reproduced as much as physically possible, even once they'd evolved beyond the point where that's literally all they did.
And so, at some point, some organism would come along that doesn't reproduce as much as possible. Maybe a bacterium, maybe a fish. Whatever. Tell me how it wins.
"The very first lifeform... would not have had a density-dependant birth rate"
.
Why not?
.
"Tell me how it wins."
.
Wins? Wins what?
.
Some animals reproduce more than others, usually the small ones reproduce more than the big ones. An elephant can have a litter of one. A spider has a litter of countless. Whether that's a 'win' is your opinion. For all we know, the elephant might accidentally step on the spider and her entire litter.
@bgaede The very first lifeform would have to be too simple to be coded for a density-dependent birth rate, because by necessity one that doesn't have the extra mechanisms to - control rate of reproduction - detect other replicators - adjust the rate of reproduction according to the pop. density of other replicators - replicate these extra systems.
So, obviously, when a replicator developed by chance, it would be the simpler one that's just complex enough to reproduce itself.
3. "how the gene for "reproduce as much as you can" is outperformed... by a gene for "limit reproduction according to population density"
.
You are stuck on this 'programming' issue, Ev, as if genes have something to do with this. There is no gene that tells the tigress to limit her repro. She just has trouble finding food and dedicates her time to hunting rather than to copulating.
4. "what allows the latter individuals to live longer"
.
Millions of years drifting from nomadic to sedentary, acclimatization to endemic diseases, better living conditions, etc. The Neanderthal became extinct when, after 600K years, they became sedentary and conquered diseases.
.
youstupidrelativist com/08Ext/05Demog/08HowNean html
@bgaede 1,2,3 - So they reproduce as much as they can, but are limited by the resources available? Yeah, that makes sense, just everything you've said so far implied it was intrinsic, it seemed more like group selectionism.
"Organisms reproduce as much as they can afford to"
.
You and everyone else miss the lesson: Animals PROACTIVELY practice contraception!!! No one believes this, but that's what density dependent BR entails. The animal senses that all is not right and does not reproduce just for the hell of it. Instead, we think that Man is the only species which practices contraception. This is a gross error.
@bgaede Well then, your previous arguments are no longer relevant, and mine still apply. We're back to "this could not possibly evolve". How will a creature that proactively practices contraception win in the environment over one that reproduces as much as it can afford to?
2. "How will a creature that proactively practices contraception win in the environment over one that reproduces as much as it can"
.
I said it a couple of times, but again a brainwashed idiot like you has no chance. Your spider produces as much as it can, a million babies in one pregnancy! The next second a comet falls on momma and her entire litter. How did unchecked repro help her, idiot Ev? In what way did she leave descendants and contaminate the blood of the spider world?
@bgaede 2. Checked reproduction wouldn't help her either, so that scenario is just completely irrelevant. Suggest ANY scenario where there is an actual difference in outcome, and it's better for the reproduction-limiting genes.
1. "Checked reproduction wouldn't help her either, so that scenario is just completely irrelevant."
.
We're talking about two different things. You are claiming that reproduction of many babies guarantees that more of those genes will impregnate the species. I just showed you an example where it's not true.
2. I am claiming that animals do NOT copulate for the sake of it. They practice contraception. They sense when there is not enough food to go around and give priority to Number One. The notion that animals reproduce as much as they can in order to get their genes into the stream (as if there is an innate competition to produce babies) (your argument) is flawed!
"That might make sense if i said that it guaranteed it in every instance"
.
You still don't get it, do you? If lions kill the fittest or most reproductive wildebeest AND her offspring and her granddaughters and grandsons, it doesn't matter how fit or reproductive that genealogy was.
.
"That would be evoultion. Which i've tried to explain to you"
.
Let me explain evolution one more time to YOU: "Those who did not die are alive!" Did you understand that or not, you stupid idiot?
@bgaede And that's another non sequitur. We're assuming that every single species doesn't become extinct every generation, so such things are irrelevant, and you're dodging the real issue.
that's a terrible way to explain evolution, and if that's your understanding of it... read The Selfish Gene or something.
"every single species doesn't become extinct every generation"
.
Who said they do? What does this comment have to do with what we're talking about.
.
YOU claim that animals reproduce until babies come out of their ears and that that's how they ensure that their genes conquer the internal markets. I just gave you two examples where whether you reproduce many or few is irrelevant. Don't change the subject. What's the point of a tiger and a lioness to produce many tigons if all of them are sterile?
@bgaede Yes, you did just give me two examples where wether an organism reproduces much or little is irrelevant. That's exactly my complaint - situations where the topic of debate is irrelevant, are irrelevant to the topic of debate! *facepalm*
"you did just give me two examples where wether an organism reproduces much or little is irrelevant"
.
Great! So don't bring that issue up again. Whether a creature produces a lot of offspring is irrelevant if all the offspring die. Likewise, the idiotic notion of 'survival of the fittest' (in the sense that most people take it: the strongest out-competes the weakest), is also nonsense.
@bgaede But situations where the offspring all die are completely irrelevant to discussion of whether it's possible for a trait for controlling the amount of offspring to evolve.
And yes, the common misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a misunderstanding, but i haven't said anything alluding to that misunderstanding in the slightest, so what the hell is your point?
"a trait for controlling the amount of offspring to evolve"
.
A trait for controlling the amount of offspring? You really are out of your mind! Big animals like elephants have one child. Small animals like spiders have hundreds. What part did you not understand? What is this 'trait' bullshit?
@bgaede "A trait for controlling the amount of offspring" refers to your density-dependend birth rate idea. I'm referring to the genes that would allow the animals to "actively practice contraception". Because this stuff would have to evolve, i'm asking you to explain how this trait could possibly take over in a population of organisms. Just give one example - any example - where the genes of individuals with this trait would outcompete genes from individuals without the trait.
"If it's not because of genes, then what the hell makes it work?"
.
Let's destroy your 'gene' theory first so that it doesn't come back to haunt us later on. The grandmother produced 10 offspring when the herd, colony, pack, pride, etc was small. The granddaughter produced 1 offspring (or none at all) when the herd, colony, pack, pride, etc, was large. Did the genes change in just two generations? Did the Gma also have the density-dependent gene?
@bgaede Well, either breeding was restricted by the resources available, or the grandmother had the density-dependent gene. Or perhaps you actually have a point, and you can think of another mechanism to bring about density-dependent breeding?
It's not like it's going to just pop out of thin air, or be magically tagged on with some kind of soul, so if it's not in the genome, what the hell is density-dependant breeding coming from?
@bgaede Well, you've already said that organisms actively practice contraception, rather than reproducing as much as they can but being limited by resources. So you can't really say "Yes!" to that. You disagreed with it earlier.
Well, no, my argument is that a population where every organism has those genes, rather than genes that don't code for contraception, can't be stable. But we have to cover the basics first.
1. "you've already said that organisms actively practice contraception, rather than reproducing as much as they can but being limited by resources. So you can't really say "Yes!" to that.
.
You really are a bird brain! The animal senses that there is little food. So, unlike you, it thinks! "There is no food for me. Why am I going to have a child?"
@bgaede 2. If it's true at all, it would have to be programmed into us by our genes, and somehow come about by evolution, because otherwise such behavbiour by living things could be explained only as an astronomical fluke, or a god. Well, unless you have an alternative hypothesis - enlighten me.
@bgaede 1. Not having enough food to raise offspring = being limited by resources.
If your idea is that organisms limit their reproduction to what they can reasonably pull off, and perhaps there's a bit of overkill just because overestimating resources has worse consequences, then that makes perfect sense and you're just really terrible at explaining it. But I didn't think that's what you believed.
I'm not sure that I can explain it in any other way, but I would really appreciate you telling me what I am doing wrong. I thought it was clear as a bell.
.
"it would have to be programmed into us by our genes"
.
You treat genes as if they were the only alternative. Is every facet of thinking governed by genes? If an animal senses (believes, thinks, reaches a conclusion) that it is having trouble feeding itself, is this 'sense' governed by genes?
@bgaede Well, you've said a few things implying birth rate is limited more than just what would be dictated by the parent's food supply.
Yes, this "sense" has to be governed by genes, because it has to be hereditary, and has to apply to plants, and animals like worms that are practically brainless. Both those things point to genetics.
If a million rocks fall into a pit during an earthquake and, because of the pressure, some turn into powder, and this allows more rocks to fit within the pit, is all of this a consequence of their genes?
.
Do your genes determine how you think? Or is your way of thinking conditioned by what you have read and assimilated and interpreted?
.
Are you a robot, Ev? Do you have no flexibility to change your mind because mom 'programmed you in a certain way?
@bgaede - No, and i don't see how that's comparable. Nothing hereditary, animal behaviour isn't controlled directly by environmental factors without a brain, produced by genes, to interpret them. - Both. Genes control the structure of the human brain, how things affect you emotionally, how the cognitive biases are weighted, and all the subconscious stuff your brain does. Without all that stuff, the brain would just be a useless chunk of meat, now wouldn't it?
"without a brain, produced by genes, to interpret them"
.
You confuse the bones with movement. The fact that you need bones to move, does not mean that bones are responsible for the decision to move left or right. Likewise, genes do not tell you to go left or right.
@bgaede And you're confusing all parts with one. Genes influence the development of all parts of the brain, they are what makes the brain do what it does. It's not just the meat the brain is made of, allowing some non-genetic mind (What could this even be? A soul?) to move in and adapt it.
Genes make the whole thing. A fraction of the brain's function is conscious, and even that is still influenced by genes. That's why human personalities are all similar (compared to the sample space).
That's a single action. Not a behaviour. If, handedness and other factors taken into account, people tended to move their left hand more than their right when asked to "move your hand", that would be a behaviour, and something comparable to what's being discussed.
And, It would certainly be genetic, if it wasn't just a massive enough coincidence to produce statistically significant results.
Density-dependant reproduction is a behaviour, not an individual's single action.
So one cow decides NOT to have children in response to density dependence and another does otherwise. More cows decide NOT to have children than those that do, and from a statistical perspective we have a decline in the pop. How is this scenario different than the right/left example?
2. "Density-dependant reproduction is a behaviour, not an individual's single action"
.
Behavior IS what ONE individual has! It may be comprised of a series of actions. When several individuals have the same behavior, we call it 'culture'.
@bgaede My bad, i should have said arbitrary, it doesn't matter that it's a single action...
The right/left example is arbitrary, so consciously you don't really care either way, so you'll be influenced slightly by your genes, but generally come out about 50/50 (if left- and right- handedness is factored in), unless there's some genetic factor influencing it.
1. "you'll be influenced slightly by your genes... genes will influence it"
.
I guess they brainwashed you so much with this 'gene' stuff that I would need more than a baseball bat to pound it out of you.
.
I can only give you my take, which is that density dependent BR is a statistical phenomenon that happens to every species, whether plant or animal. Certainly, we are not immune to density dependence.
2. Fowler argues that all large species are subjected to them...
.
cnr uidaho edu/wlf448/Fowler htm
.
Therefore, Man will reach a point where density dependent BRs will indeed limit his expansion. WHEN that happens (ZPG), our economic system will necessarily be in trouble.
3. Our artificial economy is based on exponential population growth. The expectation is that tomorrow there will be more demand, and demand is ultimately contingent upon population. We WILL see our economy collapse the day population reaches its historical zenith.
@bgaede 3. Demand is not directly proportional to world population. It's proportional to world population AND how much each individual can demand. The latter will continue to increase exponentially, will it not?
Also, if demand levels out and falls with the world population, wouldn't that change be slow enough, and visible enough, that it would require criminal incompetence of everyone with anything to do with the economy for a total collapse to actually happen?
1. "Demand is not directly proportional to world population. It's proportional to world population AND how much each individual can demand. The latter will continue to increase exponentially, will it not?"
.
You perpetually confuse your idiotic artificial economy with Mother Nature's economy. Does Bill Gates EAT 10 times more than you because he has the means to do so???
2. MN wipes her ass with your notion of economics! We are animals and as animals there is only one thing we need to stay alive: food. The rest is not part of our natural economy. The rest is there to confuse you. The day the global economy collapses, you will know the true value of a computer and a Cadillac! ZIP! There will be no demand for them! At any price!
3. In MN's world, the eco pyr has a 10 to 1 ratio between trophic levels. In Man's artificial econ, it is barely above a 1 to 1 ratio. We produce food practically upon demand. That's how efficient we already are. Ask for a hamburger at McDonalds and you get one within minutes. Fred Flinstone never had it so good. He had to spear the animal, tear off its hide, and prtoect his catch from his neighbors.
4. But even in your artificial econ of gadgets and stock markets, demand is not an issue of wishes and wants. It's an issue of money. Desires may be unlimited. Dollars ain't!
5. "if demand levels out and falls with the world population, wouldn't that change be slow enough, and visible enough, that it would require criminal incompetence of everyone with anything to do with the economy for a total collapse to actually happen?"
.
Are you kidding me? Are you suggesting that a stupid moron like you has the intelligence to see extinction, Ev? Idiots like you will wait until the last day and still think that God will come at the last moment to save them.
6. NO ONE, no matter how intelligent or educated, accepts extinction! Been there! Done that! There is no way to convince another human that extinction is even possible, let alone convince him that it is imminent! But I will do my best at the conference.
7. The way I see it coming, the politicians and 'economists' like you will exhaust every fiscal remedy at their disposal. This takes the global artificial econ to the brink of the precipice. The next step is free fall. There are no more candies in the bag. Extinction of a species such as Man cannot be drawn out. It must be sudden death!
@bgaede 7 - Even if a fiscal remedy isn't possible (which is ridiculous), that would just lead to, at worst, a declaration of martial law and a switch to a centrally planned economy, Unless you can tell me how economics will stop an army that is allowed to take what they need by force, if they even need to maneuver at all and people don't just co-operate when told they'll be arrested if they don't go back to work/re-hire employees/invest in company X
"fiscal remedy isn't possible (which is ridiculous" . When you exhausted ALL fiscal remedies, what fiscal remedy can you introduce if, again, you exhausted ALL fiscal remedies. What part of ALL did you not understand, shithead? . "a switch to a centrally planned economy" . How about NO government, lawlessness, genuine anarchism? Why would the soldier obey? What's 'the Gov' gonna bribe him with? Money? . "how economics will stop an army" . Army? What army?
@bgaede "What part of ALL did you not understand, shithead"
The part where all fiscal remedies automatically don't work at all, or are only a temporary fix, so the problem isn't actually solved, so it's not a remedy. Or, in other words, the part where fiscal remedies are impossible, that you haven't actually backed up at all, you've just said nothing will fix the problem.
@bgaede The soldiers would obey partly because they're trained to obey their commanding officers, partly because they have nowhere else to go in an economic downturn, partly because they'll be court-martialed for insubordination if they disobey, partly because the government tell them they'll get paid at the end of the month, or whenever they get paid, same as always. And partly because by the end of the month, they'll have restored order and will be getting paid if they're halfway competent.
Population control is in dire need. Good presentation and it makes sense.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
Thanks for this T-rex video (and all the rest); I won't press "Like" again cos I did last time. Wish I could make videos like this. And can't wait to watch Vol 17 again! Really admire your effort.
bobinhk1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What
A
Load
Of
Crap
stramster1 3 months ago
i'm pretty sure that you are stepping outside your domain in all aspects of your videos... i think you should stick to being a worthless communist
Xero555000 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Readers may be interested to know that Mr. Gaede is still currently on FBI and CIA watch lists. He also "may have intent to defraud." He is a convicted felon who now practices freely from his Argentina location.
taxihotel 8 months ago
Notice that Gaede never mentions the many other scientists now challenging conventional thought.
This con man is not even close to being the most original or to having the most comprehensive theory, yet he takes all the credit himself for being the only voice of reason.
He puts on his little show here and never acknowledges the many others out there whose work is far better than his.
Folks, this is not Gaede's domain. He didn't start this, and he's one of the weakest in this field.
taxihotel 9 months ago
"Gaede never mentions... other scientists... challenging conventional thought... many others out there whose work is far better"
.
Science doesn't care who you choose to believe, idiot tax. Which theory YOU subscribe to is your personal business and doesn't concern Science.
.
But if there are 'better' scientists and physicists out there, it would have helped your case if you would've suggested some names and websites to your audience, tax. So far you've made an unsubstantiated statement.
bgaede 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede
Gaede is not even a scientist. He is sad deluded crackpot. He doesn't publish any scientific papers, only a childish web page. He has some novel ideas but he lacks a basic understanding the scientific method and is incapable of building a coherent set of ideas. He loves to lecture everyone about what he thinks science is, but no one is listening.
estragon9
taxihotel 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bill Gaede is a communist Argentine spy who stole and provided the Soviet Bloc with secret American technical information during the cold war. Later, he stole and sold Intel’s proprietary state-of-the-art Pentium process to China and Iran. Gaede was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in the United States. He served a term of 33 months in prison, after which he was deported back to Argentina, where he now works as a disinformation specialist.
taxihotel 9 months ago
1. "Nothing equals nothing. You know "exactly" what I mean"
.
You make profound statements, blue!
.
Earlier you claimed that "something must have always existed". You defined 'something' as 'us and the universe'. Pursuant to YOUR definition, 'us and the universe' have always existed and were never created. There is no room for creation in a theory where 'something' has ALWAYS existed.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. But now you make a stunning statement: that 'nothing equals nothing'. You reason that I should understand this statement (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). You're quite philosopher, blue.
.
"you know its logical"
.
They should preserve your brain for posterity, blue. It must be unique.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "You refuse to believe"
.
Belief plays no role in Science. In Science, we don't believe. In Science, we explain.
.
"I'm not the "Best" explainer"
.
Now there's 'something' we can both agree on, blue!
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "I'm now using my spare time to argue with nonsense"
.
Well, you raised the issue of God and Creation. If you believe that God and Creation are nonsense, why did you bring them up? I thought you wanted to get to the bottom of where we or the U came from?
.
But you're right. You shouldn't waste your valuable time on God and Creation.
bgaede 1 year ago
1. "By something, I mean't "US and this universe"
.
So let's get this straight, blue. You said, and I quote, "Something must come from something" and replacing now, you meant... "US and this universe must come from US and this universe." That's deep!
.
"nothing can only create"
,
Nothing creates??? That's even deeper. You are profound thinker, blue! It's over my head!
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "something must have always existed. :) Think Energy"
.
Energy is 'US and this universe'??? How profound!
.
Again, you didn't answer the Q. If something (US and this universe) have always existed, I guess that we're done in our reasoning, correct?
bgaede 1 year ago
"Nothing can come from nothing. Something must come from something...The universe is something. The universe, something, must have come from something. That something must be Above time/space... God"
.
If as YOU say, something must come from something and as YOU say, God is something, where did this something come from? From what other 'something'?
.
Of course, it would help if you defined the words something and nothing.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgasede wow I've just looked You up on Wikipedia and it turns out you're quite a celebrity. a former spy for Soviet Union. It says you come from Argentine. Many surprising facts. And yet you bother to respond ordinary people on youtube :) What a social, interesting person.
ksionc100 1 year ago
@bgaede You look like Fred Flinston but older i like the comedy in Your videos.
obviously You realise that non of what you said about the food chains being destroyed contradicts the fact that mass extinctions are in fact caused by sudden events like astronomic collisions or climate change in conncection with habitat loss.
ksionc100 1 year ago
1. "non of what you said about the food chains being destroyed contradicts the fact that mass extinctions are in fact caused by sudden events like astronomic collisions or climate change"
.
How did the smart collision SELECT the older families of plants and animals and left the new families to thrive? Why did the intelligent asteroid do away with the gymnosperms and leave the angiosperms alone?
bgaede 1 year ago
2. Why did the smart ET bollide selectively take out the calcareous nanoplankton-ammonite-mosasaur food chain and spare the sharks and crocs? That's a mighty 'bright' comet if you ask me!
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede what are you talking about? There are plenty of older families still present. Gymnosperms not only didn't go extinct but are still abundant. Your argument is totally flawed. The event that caused mass extinction paved the way for some new diversity afterwards. Sharks survived because they vary in sizes which enabled them to eat less during hard times. The same goes for crocs which BTW are not living fossils (google: "BBCnews Crocs dispel living fossil myth ").
ksionc100 1 year ago
1. "Gymnosperms not only didn't go extinct but are still abundant"
.
You didn't do your homework, ks!
.
dinosauria com/jdp/misc/hellcreek html
.
(Mega Flora from the Hell Creek Formation... shows that gymnosperm had dwindled to about 10% of total flora towards the end of the Cretaceous.)
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "The event that caused mass extinction"
.
The event??? An 'event' caused the mass extinction??? Sounds more like the 'event' brainwashing caused you to be hardwired that way. Old habits die hard.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "Sharks survived because they vary in sizes which enabled them to eat less during hard times."
.
You have the reasoning abilities of a snail and the street smartness of a Cambridge grad, ks. They can sell you the Empire State. Twice.
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "crocs which BTW are not living fossils"
.
Agreed! The point was that the dynasty is what did not die. The point is that the sharks and crocs survived the K-T. They were not part of the dino's and sea reptile's food chain.
.
Only idiots believe that an asteroid caused an impact winter. You have to be a gullible moron to accept such a ludicrous theory!
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede if your point is that dinos disappeared because flowering plants outcompeted gymnosperms, you're wrong because:
A flowering plants emerged about 240mln years ago giving a plenty of time for dino herbivores to adapt.
B predatory dinos could have hunted plant-eating mammals
C dinos' genes survived in the form of today's birds
ksionc100 1 year ago 5
@bgaede actually I was putting it in simple words for You to understand :)
ksionc100 1 year ago
@bgaede lol it is not written in the link you gave me but even if it was how does that relate to anything?
First you argued against asteroid impact as the cause of mass extinction 65mln years ago. Then you suggested that gymnosperms are extinct, which is obviously not true as gymnosperm forests cover huge part of the globe today. I'm not sure what are you trying to prove
ksionc100 1 year ago
1. "it is not written in the link you gave me but even if it was how does that relate to anything? you suggested that gymnosperms are extinct"
.
You read quite superficially, ks. I never said that gymnosperm went extinct. In fact, the link I gave you makes it plain: the gymnosperm -- the plants on which the dinos relied on -- had greatly diminished by the end of the K.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "I'm not sure what are you trying to prove"
.
In Science, we don't prove anything. In Science, we only explain. Again, you seem to be a very careless reader.
.
The KT mass ext like the one in progress now was the result of an INEVITABLE economic collapse. The mechanism of a mass ext is the overturning of the ecological pyramid, The economy of Mother Nature is NOT money, finances and stock markets. Her economy consists of food.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. When a grand family of animals (amphibians, dinos, mammals) have been around for a while, become numerous and sedentary, they get used to the diseases and plants in their regions. Like all animal species, plant species also undergo a cycle from cradle to grave. Their cycles, however, are much longer. Whereas animal species last in the millions and 10s of m of years, plant species last 100s of m of years. But they do eventually go... INEVITABLY!
bgaede 1 year ago
4. When they go, the animals stuck to that green carpet go with them: SUDDENLY. It cannot be in any other way. A mass ext is the disintegration of an entire food chain: ALWAYS the old guard. No exceptions! The new species of animals, tied to the newer, incoming plants which are rapidly displacing the old guard, become the new rulers, the new caretakers of Eden.
bgaede 1 year ago
5. Cycad Monument in South Dakota is a case in point. The petrified forest was not comprised of cycads. It was comprised of cycad-like Cycadeoidaceae and Williamsoniaceae. The dinosaurs which depended on them missed this forest, which remained practically intact until the 19th C. The cycadeoids died a couple of m y before the KT line. No comet, asteroid or meteorite struck them down!
bgaede 1 year ago
6. Certainly, any dinos that fed on them had to disappear when these types of plants were gone. The cycadeoids had been around for most of the Jurassic. They were the archetypical plants of the Jurassic. Most animals living in the Jurassic evolved with them and relied almost exclusively on them.
bgaede 1 year ago
7. The idiots of Paleontology have come up with an antidote: all species switch from lettuce to pine leaves when the lettuce disappears.
.
Yeah? Tell that to the Triceratopses!
.
In the Hell Creek region where Tri and T-Rex made their last stand, the ratio of Angios to Gymnos had dropped to an alarming 10 to 1!!! That's what the link I gave indicates objectively. If you think that the Tri decided at the last moment to switch from cycads to magnolias, then you're off your rocker, ks.
bgaede 1 year ago
8. Nevertheless, the Q would remain: Why did the Alvarezs' asteroid SELECTIVELY wipe out the gymnos and leave the angios?
.
Likewise, what disappeared in the benthic waters were not the INCOMING crocs and sharks (and new types of fish). What disappeared were the ANCIENT food chains: mosasaur, ammonite, calcareous nanoplankton, diatoms, foraminifera, etc: the LARGE plankton (i.e., Cope's Law), The INCOMING small fries survived.
bgaede 1 year ago
9. The Paleo was the Age of Trilobites. The Meso was the Age of Ammonites. And the Ceno is the Age of Krill.
.
The krill is on its way out, and so are the LARGE animals that depend almost exclusively on it: whales, penguins, seals, etc, Their time is up. They've been around for too long and have gotten too used to their hamburgers. That entire food chain will undoubtedly disintegrate in the mass ext we are about to witness.
bgaede 1 year ago
10. Will the 'comet' that kills the whales and krill also kill the spiders and roaches on land? Will the 'impact winter' that causes mass ext according to the idiots of Paleo eliminate all the insects?
.
Probably not. We built our highways and skyscrapers so that the insects can grow big (Cope's Law again), crawl thru them and live a decent life when we're gone.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede how do we know the explanation is a correct model of nature? if the universe exists in an objective sense then we would expect it to behave in a certain way that is not based on our preconceived notions of it. the only way of knowing how nature behaves is to run a test.
theinsane102 5 months ago
"how do we know"
Science doesn't deal with knowledge! In Science, we merely explain. What you choose to believe is your personal business and doesn't concern Science. There are no opinions in Science. Opinions (subjectivity) are the exclusive province of religion. Science is strictly objective: "One explanation for this phenomenon is..."
.
"the only way of knowing...
... that God exists is to be raped by the priest!"
bgaede 5 months ago
"believe in the possible existence of a God"
.
Both atheism and theism are irrational. The scientific version is that belief plays no role in existence. Existence is not a matter of personal opinion.
.
youtube com/watch?v=Twx7xjgRTuw
bgaede 1 year ago
You turned Man-Bear-Pig into Lady-Man-Bug!
Herv3 1 year ago
What is wrong with this guys hair? I can't even pay attention to his annoying vioce with that thing waving around
floyd316 1 year ago
It turns out that my hairdresser was a relativist. What a bitch!
bgaede 1 year ago 7
I wonder... Is there greater evidence of God, than the silly imaginings of foolish men who don't believe in Him?
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
1. "evidence of God"
.
The only purpose of evidence is to persuade the jury and for the religious man to declare Truth through proof. There is no room for evidence in Science.
.
"men who don't believe"
.
In Science, we don't believe in existence. In Science, we hypothesize it. What sense does it make to say that you believe in the existence of THIS chair? If you don't believe, does the chair disappear? Hopefully, if God exists, the non-believer will not wish 'Him' away.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "in Him"
.
Does YOUR God have a head, arms, legs, balls...? For instance, the New Testament describes God as a 'spirit' and 'Love'. These are concepts.
.
So? Is God a concept (Love, Intelligence, spirit, energy...) or an object (human-like entity, flaming bush...)? Does God have shape or not?
bgaede 1 year ago
@12345678901234567844 Nonsense - a trip through semantics - your words are an attempt at wisdom but are full of silliness - so is science full of beliefs, presuppositions and faith in negatives until proven positives - therefor closed-mindedness instead of open-mindedness - even in the face of the direction 'facts' point them. Not all of course, only those that claim 'there is no God' definitively, when that statement cannot be evidenced either way.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
You might then say, "... so do the scientists that believe in God", and I would agree But at least they are looking in the direction of the scientific evidence/hypotheses if you wish, and not against it as do those who 'begin' with a negative hypotheses that points away from the discoveries already made.
12345678901234567844 1 year ago
Wait, what? The cause of mass extinction is not an asteoroid (guess he meant meteoroid) and not global warming, but mass starvation because plants died? Well, what killed the plants? Change of climate? May be?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
1. "what killed the plants?"
.
The animals did. And that's what's going to happen to our species.
.
If an ET came to Earth after the mass extinction that is going to claim Man, he would discover that wheat, corn, etc., vanished at the same time as humans.
.
Why?
.
Because we will eat everything in site until there is no more. A mass extinction is the result of the disappearance of entire families of plants. The families of animals that are dependent on them disappear with them.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. It is well established that gymnosperms such as cycads had practically disappeared by the end of the Cretaceous. By then, the angiosperm outnumbered them 10 to 1.
.
dinosauria com/jdp/misc/hellcreek html#plants
bgaede 1 year ago
smaller things can hide... bigger things not so much
reaperdeth56 1 year ago
...and bigger things prefer to gulp rather than to snack.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede not completely arguing with you i agree with you point eventually the gene pool will become so small that there isnt enough valid dna to create a human as we know it, but being from the current generation i have to respectfully disagree with your semi valid theory
it may happen but not for a very long time
and hopefully at that point humans have evolved to a higher place in the multiverse
or at least figured out a way to keep our species alive without the use of breeding
reaperdeth56 1 year ago
1. "the gene pool will become so small that there isnt enough valid dna to create a human... your semi valid theory... it may happen but not for a very long time"
.
This is not the main theory. The theory is that there is no other category beyond Services in our global economy other than unemployment. When unemployment reaches a critical point, the economy collapses.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. When the econ collapses, the agri corps have no more incentives to produce or deliver food to the cities. Humans die massively of starvation. (Vid 17).
.
"humans have evolved to a higher place in the multiverse"
.
Humans have evolved as far as they can. We are as perfect as can be.
.
And there is no such thing as a multiverse except in the religion of General Relativity.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede the multiverse is a theory and most scientists don't refer to the universe as the universe anymore
how do we know humans have completely evolved?
i see plenty of ways we can further evolve, because the whole point of evolution is to adapt
we are a young species
i see the point you're trying to make
but your theory is unproven just like all theories
reaperdeth56 1 year ago
1. "humans have completely evolved?"
.
Simple. We are about to disappear in a mass extinction.
.
Look around you, reap. It doesn't get any better than what you see.
.
"i see plenty of ways we can further evolve"
.
Grow 6 fingers? en wikipedia org/wiki/Polydactyly
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "the whole point of evolution is to adapt"
.
Absolutely not! Evolution: "Those who didn't die are alive!"
.
"we are a young species"
.
We are an old species, the last of the hominids! Much like T-Rex was the last of the 'terror lizards'.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "your theory is unproven just like all theories"
.
Hopefully! In Science, we don't prove. In Science, we explain. What you choose to believe is your personal business and doesn't concern Science.
.
But I should clarify that the extinction of humans is not a theory. A theory is an explanation and we can only explain a consummated event. Hopefully, the extinction of humans hasn't happenED yet.
bgaede 1 year ago
4. The extinction of humans is a guess. Some regard it as an intelligent guess; others not so much. Where extinction becomes a theory is when you can explain why ancient species disappeared. The mechanism I am proposing becomes a theory when applied to the dinos of the K-T or the synapsids of the Permian.
bgaede 1 year ago
Also, plants can't be just niches in themselves, they need niches of their own, they don't succeed just by magic. A plant of one kind won't just succeed over another because mother nature wills it to, there has to be a change in the environment.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "the first part of the video doesn't makes sense... im not even sure what the argument is"
.
Maybe you should watch it again and try to understand it before you rant.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "assumes herbivores are... incapable of changing the kind of plant they eat. Even over the millions of years"
.
It works in reverse. Towards the end of an extended period such as the Mesozoic, animals SPECIALIZE rather than DIVERSIFY in their diets. In the last stretch, T-Rex depended almost exclusively on Triceratops which depended almost exclusively on Cycads.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. Why would Triceratops be changing its diet over the last millions of years if it still had Cycads to munch on? Do you begin eating pine cones while you still have hamburgers at McDonalds, or do you try pine cones after there's nothing left to eat? People in early Soviet Russia ate the bark off of trees in desperation!
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "A plant of one kind won't just succeed over another because mother nature wills it to, there has to be a change in the environment."
.
I thought a change of plants WAS a change in the environment??? I mean, if at one time you had palm trees and a few million years later you have pine trees in the same region, I suspect that your landscape has changed a little. Isn't that a change in your 'environment'?
bgaede 1 year ago
5. All you said so far is that "A plant succeeds over another one because there is a change of plants."
.
A plant succeeds over another one because of several reasons, among them...
.
a. All species MUST die! NO ONE escapes extinction! (Mother Nature's Law of 'Life')
.
b. The vibrant new species has developed a crucial advantage over the ancient ones. The new species spread faster than and displace the old ones.
bgaede 1 year ago
6. c. The nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc, cycles vary over the course of millions of years because there is a symbiotic relationship with the plants (including phytoplankton). For instance, if a new species of plants that fixes more nitrogen is expanding across the planet, there will be a change in the nitrogen cycle in their favor.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede
a) That's not a reason in itself, it's just statistically likely because of other factors + time.
b) Yeah I can't argue with that. That's at least a mechanism.
c) nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels too. Yeah i can't argue with those. You just didn't give a mechanism in the video, to my memory.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "shortages, there would be a massive selection pressure to be able to eat the other kinds of plants"
.
Mass extinctions don't happen that way. They happen at the very end. The entire cycle is...
.
A very general type of animals (e.g., amphibians, dinos, mammals) expand as the plants they thrive on expand in numbers and diversify. This process lasts for a 100m years or so. The animals grow big and specialize (Cope's Law). Many fall by the wayside in local background extinctions.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. New plants now come into the picture. The old order contracts. The old TYPES of animals can no longer diversify because the niches are fading. If some types adapt to the new plants, they will evolve into something else over time anyways. They are changing something very radically in their lives: what they eat ("You are what you eat"). Most species will simply die by attrition.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. Towards the very end, we have few species of ancient plants and animals. Ancient species are very tough, nothing kills them. They had eons to adapt to everything. Plants developed poisons or spikes to drive away most animals. The herbivores developed defensive tools against predators and have become essentialy immune to endemic diseases that would have killed them in the past. The predators developed offensive weapons. Yet they are all remnants of a dying empire. Their time has come.
bgaede 1 year ago
4. Large herbivores (sometimes only one or two remain locally) expand in numbers. They are living their golden age. Unfortunately, they are doing so just when the forests they relied upon are turning from ocean to lake to puddle. The large herbivores are unwittingly destroying what's left of their own habitat. The large predators expand in response to the availability of more food. So both herbivores and predators are expanding just when the total numbers of plants they feast upon are declining.
bgaede 1 year ago
5. There is a crossover point where herbivores exceed their carrying capacity and predators do likewise shortly after. Large, specialized herbivores which have been built over millions of years cannot suddenly switch their diets any more than you can switch from lettuce to pine leaves overnight. They have more and more trouble finding food and liquidate their last reserves. The large, specialized predators follow suit.
bgaede 1 year ago
6. Man has specialized in his eating habits. He's become perfect, much like T-Rex in his own way. We are essentially immune to diseases (we don't die of diseases any more), and eat mostly a handful of meats and a handful of grains and beans. The strategic problem is that we deliberately grow these vittles. Once the agri corps stop planting/harvesting, we cannot overnight switch to eating the bark off of trees. Our eco pyramid has suddenly overturned and we have the many chasing whatever is left.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede
We can eat whatever does eat the bark of trees. Humans are omnivores, and we can make pointed sticks, bows & arrows, and flaming torches, with no technological base. Unless you're positing that the next shift in the ecosystem (which humanity essentially controls) will produce animals that we can't kill, cook and eat? That would be impressive.
Are we talking superintelligent planet-of-the-apes gorillas?
Or just a whole ecosystem made of poison?
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "the niches are fading" is selection pressure *for* diversifying, not against it"
.
You got it in reverse, Ev! Animal radiation ONLY occurs when plants expand their empires, not when they are contracting.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "the fact that the other plants exist at all, millions of years before they manage to take over the world, is selection pressure to eat them"
.
If someone crosses the line, that species turns into a new one. Most continue with their food sources. It is not an issue of scarcity in the sense that there is nothing to eat and so you must change your eating habits.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. It's an issue where grass takes over what used to be trees after the dinos peeled the trees to the bone and a new species of long necks cannot now evolve because there is in fact NO selection PRESSURE! There are no new types of trees that would allow a franchise to develop. We have a new type of plant altogether which the long necks cannot switch to overnight. As far as they are concerned, those grasses are weeds!
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "We can eat whatever does eat the bark of trees"
.
A starving human?
.
"Humans... can make pointed sticks, bows & arrows, and flaming torches"
.
To hunt flies? Termites? Cook some worms on a stick like marshmallows?
bgaede 1 year ago
5. "Unless you're positing that the next shift in the ecosystem... will produce animals that we can't kill, cook and eat"
.
Kill, yes. Cook, yes. Eat? Well, I'm not sure you will eat ants a la casserole. Not enough to go around for everybody. You know. 7B people?
bgaede 1 year ago
6. "a whole ecosystem made of poison?"
.
No. A whole ecosystem like the T-Rex found at the end Cretaceous: nothing big enough to keep them alive. What will we hunt after all the farm animals are slaughtered in the first couple of weeks, many of them rotting in the fields? What will you eat once the last veggies are ripped from the ground? Weeds? Pine cones?
bgaede 1 year ago
7. And how will you protect yourself from that neighbor of yours who has a gun, hasn't eaten for two days, and realizes that it's you or him? Will you share your last carrot with him and bribe him to help you on your next hunt? Will he walk in front of you or behind you?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede
Okay, point taken. If somehow farming itself collapses, we probably won't have anything to eat because there's massively more population than could be supported by the ecosystem, and so that ecosystem would probably die. I wasn't considering the world population, i was just picturing a similar ecological process to the kind you say killed the dinosaurs.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
@bgaede
1. Can you explain why, then?
2. But there must be, because you start with a population that lives on a large area, and (as with most animal populations) they continue to reproduce as much as they can, and then you go to a smaller area. That must lead to starvation.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. Bill: "Animal radiation ONLY occurs when plants expand their empires, not when they are contracting."
.
Ev: "why"
.
Contraction implies that the plants have been around for a while and new plants are displacing them. This happens only after millions of years. Therefore, all the animals that got used to the old regime are stuck with it. They have specialized and grown big. They have also become sedentary and adapted to endemic diseases.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. Now the plant kingdom on which they rely begins to contract in species and in numbers. Why would a line of animals used to these types of foods for millions of years, with stomachs and digestive systems designed for these plants, suddenly switch to radically new lines of plants?
bgaede 1 year ago
3. We have fewer and fewer niches. As species of large animals disappear in background extinctions, they are not replaced because there are no new niches to fill. Why would the old order radiate when their world is collapsing?
bgaede 1 year ago
4."animal populations... continue to reproduce as much as they can"
.
BULLSHIT! You make the same error all 'experts' make. You make no provision for density dependent birth rates. You should read up on it before uttering nonsense.
bgaede 1 year ago
5. The notion just about everyone has that animals spit out litter irresponsibly and wait for Mother Nature to kill those who she has no food for is grossly misconceived. MN doesn't work at the death end, but primarily on the birth end of the cycle...
.
youstupidrelativist com/08Ext/05Demog/04Density html
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede
4. If individual A reproduces as much as it possibly can, and idividual B doesn't, more of individual A's genes enter the ecosystem. I'm not sure if it's even possible for group selectionism to come into being, and continue to exist. Just answer me this, how can not breeding as much as possible, when everyone else is, increase your relative proportion of genes?
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "If individual A reproduces as much as it possibly can, and idividual B doesn't, more of individual A's genes enter the ecosystem"
.
Well, not if a volcano erupts and kills all the baby spiders that were just born as well as their mother. Her genes will NOT enter the ecosystem.
.
You see, Ev, idiots like you with no reasoning abilities, simply swallow the party line, that evolution has something to do with, take your pick...
bgaede 1 year ago
2. a. survival of the fittest
.
b. he who reproduces the mostest, leaves the mostest descendants
.
Here's Bill's take on evolution...
.
He who hasn't died, is alive!
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "how can not breeding as much as possible, when everyone else is, increase your relative proportion of genes?"
.
When everyone else is???
.
I don't see anyone breeding in my city. Ask a girl of 20 if she is willing to have 10 children and she'll tell you to fuck off! Most don't even want to have 1, and those that do say that they'll have the 1st one after preparing themselves for their careers or until they find the perfect blue prince that doesn't turn into a frog after the first kiss.
bgaede 1 year ago
4. But more ridiculous is your insinuation that there is a competition to increase your proportion of genes in the general population. It's all that brainwashing they did to you in school and that YOU take for granted.
.
Will you know who your great great great grandchildren will be?
.
So who cares about gene pool today? That's why reproductive sex has given way to recreational sex!
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede 4. Okay, now try not assuming humans are human evolution personified.
There is a competition, in that increasing your proportion of genes in the general population increases your proportion of genes in the general population. It's much easier to say the genes, or the individuals, are "competing", than to be insanely pedantic like that. Maybe you should read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". It explains a lot about evolution.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"There is a competition, in that increasing your proportion of genes in the general population increases your proportion of genes in the general population."
.
You talk as though this was a race or rally, as if we all deliberately try to put more genes into the pool. King of Genes?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede That's strange, because that's literally the opposite to what I was trying to get across, that individuals don't, and don't need to, give a crap whether their genes take over the population of the distant future.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
@bgaede 3. The very first lifeform, almost certainly the simplest possible replicator, would not have had a density-dependant birth rate.
Thus, all its descendants would have reproduced as much as physically possible, even once they'd evolved beyond the point where that's literally all they did.
And so, at some point, some organism would come along that doesn't reproduce as much as possible. Maybe a bacterium, maybe a fish. Whatever. Tell me how it wins.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"The very first lifeform... would not have had a density-dependant birth rate"
.
Why not?
.
"Tell me how it wins."
.
Wins? Wins what?
.
Some animals reproduce more than others, usually the small ones reproduce more than the big ones. An elephant can have a litter of one. A spider has a litter of countless. Whether that's a 'win' is your opinion. For all we know, the elephant might accidentally step on the spider and her entire litter.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede The very first lifeform would have to be too simple to be coded for a density-dependent birth rate, because by necessity one that doesn't have the extra mechanisms to - control rate of reproduction - detect other replicators - adjust the rate of reproduction according to the pop. density of other replicators - replicate these extra systems.
So, obviously, when a replicator developed by chance, it would be the simpler one that's just complex enough to reproduce itself.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "coded for a density-dependent birth rate"
.
Coded???
.
God?
.
Density dependence is a statistical issue. You don't need to be programmed for that.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "doesn't have the extra mechanisms to - control rate of reproduction"
.
It's an extrinsic control. You have very little food, so you dedicate your time to eating what you can instead of to copulating.
.
Place a slice of bread upon your table. Leave it for a few days. The bcteria will multiply exponentially. Then they stop reproducing.
.
Did they go to school during those days or get programmed?
.
Probably ran out of food!
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "how the gene for "reproduce as much as you can" is outperformed... by a gene for "limit reproduction according to population density"
.
You are stuck on this 'programming' issue, Ev, as if genes have something to do with this. There is no gene that tells the tigress to limit her repro. She just has trouble finding food and dedicates her time to hunting rather than to copulating.
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "what allows the latter individuals to live longer"
.
Millions of years drifting from nomadic to sedentary, acclimatization to endemic diseases, better living conditions, etc. The Neanderthal became extinct when, after 600K years, they became sedentary and conquered diseases.
.
youstupidrelativist com/08Ext/05Demog/08HowNean html
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede 1,2,3 - So they reproduce as much as they can, but are limited by the resources available? Yeah, that makes sense, just everything you've said so far implied it was intrinsic, it seemed more like group selectionism.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"So they reproduce as much as they can"
.
"No they don't. That's a myth. The examples here make that clear...
.
youstupidrelativist com/08Ext/05Demog/04Density html
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede Okay, let me rephrase that last sentence even more clearly.
Organisms reproduce as much as they can afford to, given the available resources.
Any greater assumption than that, and my earlier arguments would still apply.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"Organisms reproduce as much as they can afford to"
.
You and everyone else miss the lesson: Animals PROACTIVELY practice contraception!!! No one believes this, but that's what density dependent BR entails. The animal senses that all is not right and does not reproduce just for the hell of it. Instead, we think that Man is the only species which practices contraception. This is a gross error.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede Well then, your previous arguments are no longer relevant, and mine still apply. We're back to "this could not possibly evolve". How will a creature that proactively practices contraception win in the environment over one that reproduces as much as it can afford to?
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "your previous arguments are no longer relevant, and mine still apply"
.
You're too stupid to understand this, Ev. Why don't you stick your head in a toilet after a dump and see if it floats?
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "How will a creature that proactively practices contraception win in the environment over one that reproduces as much as it can"
.
I said it a couple of times, but again a brainwashed idiot like you has no chance. Your spider produces as much as it can, a million babies in one pregnancy! The next second a comet falls on momma and her entire litter. How did unchecked repro help her, idiot Ev? In what way did she leave descendants and contaminate the blood of the spider world?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede 2. Checked reproduction wouldn't help her either, so that scenario is just completely irrelevant. Suggest ANY scenario where there is an actual difference in outcome, and it's better for the reproduction-limiting genes.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "Checked reproduction wouldn't help her either, so that scenario is just completely irrelevant."
.
We're talking about two different things. You are claiming that reproduction of many babies guarantees that more of those genes will impregnate the species. I just showed you an example where it's not true.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. I am claiming that animals do NOT copulate for the sake of it. They practice contraception. They sense when there is not enough food to go around and give priority to Number One. The notion that animals reproduce as much as they can in order to get their genes into the stream (as if there is an innate competition to produce babies) (your argument) is flawed!
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede 1 - That might make sense if i said that it guaranteed it in every instance, which i haven't. So it's a non sequitur.
2 - That would be evoultion. Which i've tried to explain to you, several times, but unsuccessfully, it seems.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"That might make sense if i said that it guaranteed it in every instance"
.
You still don't get it, do you? If lions kill the fittest or most reproductive wildebeest AND her offspring and her granddaughters and grandsons, it doesn't matter how fit or reproductive that genealogy was.
.
"That would be evoultion. Which i've tried to explain to you"
.
Let me explain evolution one more time to YOU: "Those who did not die are alive!" Did you understand that or not, you stupid idiot?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede And that's another non sequitur. We're assuming that every single species doesn't become extinct every generation, so such things are irrelevant, and you're dodging the real issue.
that's a terrible way to explain evolution, and if that's your understanding of it... read The Selfish Gene or something.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"every single species doesn't become extinct every generation"
.
Who said they do? What does this comment have to do with what we're talking about.
.
YOU claim that animals reproduce until babies come out of their ears and that that's how they ensure that their genes conquer the internal markets. I just gave you two examples where whether you reproduce many or few is irrelevant. Don't change the subject. What's the point of a tiger and a lioness to produce many tigons if all of them are sterile?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede Yes, you did just give me two examples where wether an organism reproduces much or little is irrelevant. That's exactly my complaint - situations where the topic of debate is irrelevant, are irrelevant to the topic of debate! *facepalm*
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"you did just give me two examples where wether an organism reproduces much or little is irrelevant"
.
Great! So don't bring that issue up again. Whether a creature produces a lot of offspring is irrelevant if all the offspring die. Likewise, the idiotic notion of 'survival of the fittest' (in the sense that most people take it: the strongest out-competes the weakest), is also nonsense.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede But situations where the offspring all die are completely irrelevant to discussion of whether it's possible for a trait for controlling the amount of offspring to evolve.
And yes, the common misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a misunderstanding, but i haven't said anything alluding to that misunderstanding in the slightest, so what the hell is your point?
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"a trait for controlling the amount of offspring to evolve"
.
A trait for controlling the amount of offspring? You really are out of your mind! Big animals like elephants have one child. Small animals like spiders have hundreds. What part did you not understand? What is this 'trait' bullshit?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede "A trait for controlling the amount of offspring" refers to your density-dependend birth rate idea. I'm referring to the genes that would allow the animals to "actively practice contraception". Because this stuff would have to evolve, i'm asking you to explain how this trait could possibly take over in a population of organisms. Just give one example - any example - where the genes of individuals with this trait would outcompete genes from individuals without the trait.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"I'm referring to the genes that would allow the animals to "actively practice contraception"
.
Everything is genes to you, huh? That's what they brainwashed you with and you will never come out of it.
.
Plants practice density dependent 'contraception' too. I wonder if their genes tell them to stop procreating when there is a sea of pants around them.
.
"this stuff would have to evolve"
.
Justify that density dependent BR have to do with genes.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede If it's not because of genes, then what the hell makes it work?
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"If it's not because of genes, then what the hell makes it work?"
.
Let's destroy your 'gene' theory first so that it doesn't come back to haunt us later on. The grandmother produced 10 offspring when the herd, colony, pack, pride, etc was small. The granddaughter produced 1 offspring (or none at all) when the herd, colony, pack, pride, etc, was large. Did the genes change in just two generations? Did the Gma also have the density-dependent gene?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede Well, either breeding was restricted by the resources available, or the grandmother had the density-dependent gene. Or perhaps you actually have a point, and you can think of another mechanism to bring about density-dependent breeding?
It's not like it's going to just pop out of thin air, or be magically tagged on with some kind of soul, so if it's not in the genome, what the hell is density-dependant breeding coming from?
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"breeding was restricted by the resources available"
.
Yes!
.
"the grandmother had the density-dependent gene"
.
And plants also have density-dependent genes? It's in our code? Is this your argument?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede Well, you've already said that organisms actively practice contraception, rather than reproducing as much as they can but being limited by resources. So you can't really say "Yes!" to that. You disagreed with it earlier.
Well, no, my argument is that a population where every organism has those genes, rather than genes that don't code for contraception, can't be stable. But we have to cover the basics first.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "you've already said that organisms actively practice contraception, rather than reproducing as much as they can but being limited by resources. So you can't really say "Yes!" to that.
.
You really are a bird brain! The animal senses that there is little food. So, unlike you, it thinks! "There is no food for me. Why am I going to have a child?"
bgaede 1 year ago
2. Bill: "It's in our code? Is this your argument?"
.
idiot Ev: "no, my argument is that a population where every organism has those genes"
.
Talking to a numskull of the establishment can be quite frustrating.
.
IS density dep PROGRAMMED in us? Yes or No?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede 2. If it's true at all, it would have to be programmed into us by our genes, and somehow come about by evolution, because otherwise such behavbiour by living things could be explained only as an astronomical fluke, or a god. Well, unless you have an alternative hypothesis - enlighten me.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
@bgaede 1. Not having enough food to raise offspring = being limited by resources.
If your idea is that organisms limit their reproduction to what they can reasonably pull off, and perhaps there's a bit of overkill just because overestimating resources has worse consequences, then that makes perfect sense and you're just really terrible at explaining it. But I didn't think that's what you believed.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"you're just really terrible at explaining it"
.
I'm not sure that I can explain it in any other way, but I would really appreciate you telling me what I am doing wrong. I thought it was clear as a bell.
.
"it would have to be programmed into us by our genes"
.
You treat genes as if they were the only alternative. Is every facet of thinking governed by genes? If an animal senses (believes, thinks, reaches a conclusion) that it is having trouble feeding itself, is this 'sense' governed by genes?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede Well, you've said a few things implying birth rate is limited more than just what would be dictated by the parent's food supply.
Yes, this "sense" has to be governed by genes, because it has to be hereditary, and has to apply to plants, and animals like worms that are practically brainless. Both those things point to genetics.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"has to be governed by genes"
.
If a million rocks fall into a pit during an earthquake and, because of the pressure, some turn into powder, and this allows more rocks to fit within the pit, is all of this a consequence of their genes?
.
Do your genes determine how you think? Or is your way of thinking conditioned by what you have read and assimilated and interpreted?
.
Are you a robot, Ev? Do you have no flexibility to change your mind because mom 'programmed you in a certain way?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede - No, and i don't see how that's comparable. Nothing hereditary, animal behaviour isn't controlled directly by environmental factors without a brain, produced by genes, to interpret them. - Both. Genes control the structure of the human brain, how things affect you emotionally, how the cognitive biases are weighted, and all the subconscious stuff your brain does. Without all that stuff, the brain would just be a useless chunk of meat, now wouldn't it?
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"without a brain, produced by genes, to interpret them"
.
You confuse the bones with movement. The fact that you need bones to move, does not mean that bones are responsible for the decision to move left or right. Likewise, genes do not tell you to go left or right.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede And you're confusing all parts with one. Genes influence the development of all parts of the brain, they are what makes the brain do what it does. It's not just the meat the brain is made of, allowing some non-genetic mind (What could this even be? A soul?) to move in and adapt it.
Genes make the whole thing. A fraction of the brain's function is conscious, and even that is still influenced by genes. That's why human personalities are all similar (compared to the sample space).
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
"Genes... are what makes the brain do what it does"
.
So you extrapolate from this that you moved your right hand rather than your left because of genes? What a moron!
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede *facepalm*
That's a single action. Not a behaviour. If, handedness and other factors taken into account, people tended to move their left hand more than their right when asked to "move your hand", that would be a behaviour, and something comparable to what's being discussed.
And, It would certainly be genetic, if it wasn't just a massive enough coincidence to produce statistically significant results.
Density-dependant reproduction is a behaviour, not an individual's single action.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "That's a single action. Not a behaviour"
.
So one cow decides NOT to have children in response to density dependence and another does otherwise. More cows decide NOT to have children than those that do, and from a statistical perspective we have a decline in the pop. How is this scenario different than the right/left example?
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "Density-dependant reproduction is a behaviour, not an individual's single action"
.
Behavior IS what ONE individual has! It may be comprised of a series of actions. When several individuals have the same behavior, we call it 'culture'.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede My bad, i should have said arbitrary, it doesn't matter that it's a single action...
The right/left example is arbitrary, so consciously you don't really care either way, so you'll be influenced slightly by your genes, but generally come out about 50/50 (if left- and right- handedness is factored in), unless there's some genetic factor influencing it.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "you'll be influenced slightly by your genes... genes will influence it"
.
I guess they brainwashed you so much with this 'gene' stuff that I would need more than a baseball bat to pound it out of you.
.
I can only give you my take, which is that density dependent BR is a statistical phenomenon that happens to every species, whether plant or animal. Certainly, we are not immune to density dependence.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. Fowler argues that all large species are subjected to them...
.
cnr uidaho edu/wlf448/Fowler htm
.
Therefore, Man will reach a point where density dependent BRs will indeed limit his expansion. WHEN that happens (ZPG), our economic system will necessarily be in trouble.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. Our artificial economy is based on exponential population growth. The expectation is that tomorrow there will be more demand, and demand is ultimately contingent upon population. We WILL see our economy collapse the day population reaches its historical zenith.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede 3. Demand is not directly proportional to world population. It's proportional to world population AND how much each individual can demand. The latter will continue to increase exponentially, will it not?
Also, if demand levels out and falls with the world population, wouldn't that change be slow enough, and visible enough, that it would require criminal incompetence of everyone with anything to do with the economy for a total collapse to actually happen?
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
1. "Demand is not directly proportional to world population. It's proportional to world population AND how much each individual can demand. The latter will continue to increase exponentially, will it not?"
.
You perpetually confuse your idiotic artificial economy with Mother Nature's economy. Does Bill Gates EAT 10 times more than you because he has the means to do so???
bgaede 1 year ago
2. MN wipes her ass with your notion of economics! We are animals and as animals there is only one thing we need to stay alive: food. The rest is not part of our natural economy. The rest is there to confuse you. The day the global economy collapses, you will know the true value of a computer and a Cadillac! ZIP! There will be no demand for them! At any price!
bgaede 1 year ago
3. In MN's world, the eco pyr has a 10 to 1 ratio between trophic levels. In Man's artificial econ, it is barely above a 1 to 1 ratio. We produce food practically upon demand. That's how efficient we already are. Ask for a hamburger at McDonalds and you get one within minutes. Fred Flinstone never had it so good. He had to spear the animal, tear off its hide, and prtoect his catch from his neighbors.
bgaede 1 year ago
4. But even in your artificial econ of gadgets and stock markets, demand is not an issue of wishes and wants. It's an issue of money. Desires may be unlimited. Dollars ain't!
bgaede 1 year ago
5. "if demand levels out and falls with the world population, wouldn't that change be slow enough, and visible enough, that it would require criminal incompetence of everyone with anything to do with the economy for a total collapse to actually happen?"
.
Are you kidding me? Are you suggesting that a stupid moron like you has the intelligence to see extinction, Ev? Idiots like you will wait until the last day and still think that God will come at the last moment to save them.
bgaede 1 year ago
6. NO ONE, no matter how intelligent or educated, accepts extinction! Been there! Done that! There is no way to convince another human that extinction is even possible, let alone convince him that it is imminent! But I will do my best at the conference.
bgaede 1 year ago
7. The way I see it coming, the politicians and 'economists' like you will exhaust every fiscal remedy at their disposal. This takes the global artificial econ to the brink of the precipice. The next step is free fall. There are no more candies in the bag. Extinction of a species such as Man cannot be drawn out. It must be sudden death!
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede 7 - Even if a fiscal remedy isn't possible (which is ridiculous), that would just lead to, at worst, a declaration of martial law and a switch to a centrally planned economy, Unless you can tell me how economics will stop an army that is allowed to take what they need by force, if they even need to maneuver at all and people don't just co-operate when told they'll be arrested if they don't go back to work/re-hire employees/invest in company X
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede "What part of ALL did you not understand, shithead"
The part where all fiscal remedies automatically don't work at all, or are only a temporary fix, so the problem isn't actually solved, so it's not a remedy. Or, in other words, the part where fiscal remedies are impossible, that you haven't actually backed up at all, you've just said nothing will fix the problem.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago
@bgaede The soldiers would obey partly because they're trained to obey their commanding officers, partly because they have nowhere else to go in an economic downturn, partly because they'll be court-martialed for insubordination if they disobey, partly because the government tell them they'll get paid at the end of the month, or whenever they get paid, same as always. And partly because by the end of the month, they'll have restored order and will be getting paid if they're halfway competent.
EvansRowan123 1 year ago