Bret Weinstein - The Greatest Prediction in Evolutionary Theory | Eric Weinstein
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июл 2020
- In this Portal podcast clip, Eric Weinstein and Bret Weinstein discuss Richard (Dick) Alexander and his crazy prediction of the existence of Eusocial mammals.
Please give this clip a LIKE and SUBSCRIBE for more clips every Saturday.
This episode of The Portal was initially released on the 18th of January, 2020.
--LINK TO THE MAIN EPISODE:
• Bret Weinstein on "The...
Clip Start: 00;37;16 (bit.ly/3fbv5vS)
Clip End: 00;46;37 (bit.ly/2Zv8Ryk)
--SEND US A CLIP SUGGESTION
forms.gle/RtGuJ1TkLWo2D1CU9
--CLIP SUGGESTION CREDITS:
afke.
--WEBSITE:
ericweinstein.org/
--TWITTER:
/ theportalclips
--INSTAGRAM:
/ theportalclips
We're trying to share important messages in bite-sized packets. If you enjoyed this clip, please share the video, it really does help a lot.
--SHARE THIS VIDEO:
• Bret Weinstein - The G...
--QUOTES FROM THIS VIDEO:
"This is like one of the great moments in modern science."
"I once heard a story about a graduate student who predicted that the breeding protocols of laboratory rodents would compromise the laboratory system in terms of its relationship to so-called wild type versions of the same species."
#BretWeinstein #RichardAlexander #EricWeinstein 
Наука
Such a sweet exchange at the end. Eric so proud of his brother Bret and thinks it’s a travesty that he’s not recognized as he should be.
Imagine the conversations at the dinner table when they where kids
I started to imagine it. Then I learned that they're not that smart, so I quit.
Garry Coates I imagine their Father screaming, “Get to bed!!”, many hours after dinner was over.
@yaggle fraggle I can't tell if that's an insult to Tim or not lol
@yaggle fraggle if they're not then who is?
yaggle fraggle they have IQs way beyond yours I can assume that from your ignorant comment. Have you not watched Eric on joe rogan? He knows a lot about a lot of different subjects. They are both intuitive thinkers and are speaking at a frequency far beyond anyone I talk to on a daily basis, maybe your ego is too fragile to admit they’re smart
Clever clip with a hint at the end
Actually it was cringy af
the ending gave me chills
Heard an analogy about Eric and Brett being compared to Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Rang true to me
👍👍
Who is whom? Which one is Mycroft?
@@enkibumbu Eric is clearly Mycroft.
They're not lazy enough, nor are they interested in fighting.
@@altruisticscoundrel True. A best analogy would be Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens
I'm not ashamed to say but I absolutely love you guys. Its a breath of fresh air having smart, inquisitive and knowledgeable humans talking with each other. So good. Thank you
fascinating stuff. I like this "clips" format - makes the highlights of the discussion very accessable and shareable. Thanks Bret and Eric !
Two of the most modest, humble, selfless, egoless speakers of knowledge and intelligence
Can feel the love from Eric so much in that last sentence. It's quite beautiful.
It’s very sweet.
I love the way Eric always let's Bret finish his sentences.
OMG I had no idea Brett was the one who brought attention to the possible serious problems with the bred rodents for experiments programs. IMPRESSIVE, to say the least.
I also just realized you two are brothers. This is amazing because I have always been so impressed by both of you!
I love how overtime watching these and studying I can come back and understand things I didn’t the first time. Way better than overtime spotting the coffee cup in Game of Thrones
"I don't know of another example in evolutionary theory of something that clean and that obscure."
"I know one!"
"...oh yeah? 😳😳😳"
Here we go...
Delicious food for thought, gentlemen! Wise & witty...the dynamic duo! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼🌹
It's interesting how Bret's experience at Evergreen catapulted him into the limelight where he's now on Rogan, all over the podcast lecture circuit... He's certainly insightful in conversations on Evolution. (I went to Evergreen in the late 90's. Critical thinking was valued as foundational. I blame the internet, social media & it's effect on that particular generation)
You both inspire me, thank you for your work and effort!
I've got to listen to this again. I saw that moth! 2006 in Yogyakarta.
Indonesia stand up!
Clarence Garay - if I reply to you, like this, will I be famous too.
Watch the captions at the 3:58 mark on Xbox RUclips... Hilarious mistranslation.
Anyone know why the captions vary from device to device?
The idw should revive itself with a channel of its own that aggregates the best of clips from its members for an hour long presentation each week. Maybe something to feature on thinkspot to help drive the development of a mobile app
What effort was made to test the theory at the end?
i feel like i'm too stupid to listen to this podcast but i still do...
Nonsense keep stimulating the mind
LOL! I was thinking the exact same the other day - and here I am again.
that just means you want to learn, and anyone who wants to broaden their knowledge is not stupid.
Reading is better for breaching into new topics because u can take your time. Evolution is a great topic explains a lot about how to live and the forces that pull us around.
It's good to listen to things a bit beyond your understanding. Forces your mind to stretch to accommodate.
It has always puzzled me how did the orchids get pollinated before the “pollinated” come along.
you guys have some awesome bass in your mix
i have a system that picks it up
Genius.. I hope you don't get corrupted by this fisherman technic but the double delivery it's just genius.
Liviu Mircea Vomir - but Dick Alexander was a bigger genius.
When you have a brother like that you can fight the world 😘
Like Germany did, twice!?
@@dragons_red Norm MacDonald finds his way into every comment section in my feed somehow
Which came first? The moth or the flower?
Eric needs to take care of his health. He's an important historical figure and generally a voice for progress.
I wish he was history.
Karl P - you love Eric, admit it.
As someone with much experience with fitness I suspect that Fit Eric would be far more boring than the real Eric. Being fit is like having a clean desk, it seems a small thing but can put a hard limit on the difficult business of real progress.
That was awesome
The story about carol makes me extremely angry. Something similar happened to me with a proposed business model.
😬 the subtitles on this are very flawed, it labeled the pronunciation of a type of hawkmoth as inaudible and it misinterpreted the word find as the “f” word
so the orchid and moth evolved together.
Slade The Original - nope. God made 'em at the same time silly
Steve McCormick lmao
Can't help seeing someone else when I look at Bret and that is the actor Jon Bernthal who played the Punisher on netflix.
Love this content
What I really want to know is who mom loved the most!
That’s a very nasty question in a narcissistic parental framework. I hope their parents did not have favorites but appreciated them for the differences.
@@umiluv Someone has never heard of the Smothers Brothers.
It would be interesting to know about multiple examples, if any, of genetic modifications that are dead end imminent failures of poor adaptations. If anyone wants to support the idea of randomness of adaptations, then finding examples of one of the arguably far more examples of failed changes should be the easiest thing to find.
The brother is like "got'cha"
Is anyone else confused how this prediction demonstrates that these systems are the products of natural selection working on random variation?
I think the randomness starts at a specific point and if that randomness is successful for that environment, the gene mutations that continue down that path become more and more defined where it no longer seems random because you’re randomizing genes that have already bounded themselves to the success of the environment.
The way you can think about it is when the evolutionary “branches” start happening is when true RNG seems to exist whereas once a “selection” has been made, the genes now randomize to further that selection.
The mentioned prediction could have been made by a creationist as well. Creationists and evolutionists both believe nature consists of generations of systems that differ slightly from their predecessors. Both can make predictions by observing holes in a known system. The reproductive system of a flower consists of not only the flower itself but also the insects or the wind that disperses their seed. So if you find a new flower you have found only part of the system, and you can fill in the holes. A creationist could have made the same prediction because he shares these assumptions: everything in nature is functional for reproduction, DNA determines a significant part of a biological system, everything is subject to change. The controversial claims are about origins of life and different biological systems, not about present functional biology.
Well, in the most basic sense, what they are inferring (yes they did not directly connect the dots) is the scientific idea that a prediction made from a theory that comes true strengthens the validity of that theory. Making good predictions with evolutionary theory is difficult though, it requires one to know alot of specifics about biology as it has evolved on Earth, the specific environments here, and quite a bit of the history of the Earth biome.
Otherwise, random mutation and natural selection are just open ended processes that could virtually lead to anything. You need a context for them to make predictions.
The unfortunate situation here is they made it sound like this guys prediction was never put to paper, just an offhand comment, so the scientific community may never know what methods he deduced this principles by, which is key for it's usefulness in Science.
Yes the probability alone that he could have predicted this and accidentally matched real world is so low that Scientists may consider that proof enough, but I am one to hold them to their own rules, less they drift more and more into the religious or bias confirmation types of thinking that they were a response to in origin.
There is great difficulties with Sciences like evolution, global warming, diet/nutrition because the don't lend themselves well (or at all) to some of the basic tenents of the Scientific method like prediction, reproducibility, null hypothesis, variable control. Global warming is probably the worst of these, and Scientists over the years have made "accommodations" unfortunately to allow some of these theories to hold weight despite their shortcomings (which I think has more to do with an epistemological crisis arising as Science is showing it's limits to what it can inform us on, as previously the West had embraced it as the savior of man with all the great, and not so great, technology it has given us).
Anyway, I personally believe evolutionary theory is more or less correct, but likely genetics will reveal some even more bizarre stuff going on than we know yet that factors into the big picture. The gap between atoms and molecules obeying the laws of physics to self organization of molecular chains is the biggest gap to explore IMO.
I also think the divide between creationism and evolution is an illusion. To use Eric's phrase from an interview I saw him in recently "they are just describing things using different coordinate systems". Not to say that helps things, just highlighting one of the biggest roadblocks humans have as "reasoned, thinking" creatures.
I find the prediction about the flower and the long-tongued moth incoherent. Is "selection" working on the plant or on the moth. How could the flower even exist and duplicate itself without the moth to begin with. The two species (plant and moth) would have to spring up together.
umiluv So I guess my question is: how do we know that the phenomenon we’re observing is the product of a series of random, but bounded, gene mutations, as opposed to some other mechanism? I’m having trouble with the causal link.
Very interesting clip ♥♥♥! As a fellow RUclipsr, I am always looking for fresh ideas! Good Job!
🤣🤣🤣 exactly, so cringy btw and not at all smart
i never realised these two were different people before
Every time I watch these guys I spend hours on wikipedia just to understand the words they are using.
Do you think they color their hair? And if they do why?
Y'all ever buy pants that fit?
Freaking scientists can theorize evolution but can’t find the right pant size
@@user-fo4wd7hy4b AAAAAAHHAHAHAHAH GET OUTTA MY FACE RIGHT NOW
Bradley Bohus it’s a banner of pride for nerds.
The worst part is, what Eric is wearing aren't even trousers that are too short, they're shorts which are too long.
Spinoza very good observation
Shout out to Kim Possible
What was Weinstein doin at Evagreen? Dude shoulda been at Hahvad.
He and his family prefer the PNW. It would have been nice to have him at the UW though.
No no no. Evergreen is an agenda driven educational machine driven by the oligarchy. Check it out.
I'm all like, "bread rats?"
I"m embarrassed that I still don't fully understand evolution, even after watching several videos on the topic. I think I will just go back to believing in creationism, so much simpler!!! And god said "let there by moths with long tongues" and there was, and they were good.
@Pecu AlexAnd God said "Let there be Troll's" and there was, and they were bad.
@Jack. Love your humor.
Grey Dyvr - I don’t think you understand what the term “theory” means in science.
Y’all need heard by anyone that hasn’t learned independent thinking and how it happens. Curiosity is key. But challenging all ‘truths’ , in one’s on head or written, to exhaustion is our human duty.
I'm very rapidly getting totally fckn sick of the Weinsteins.
Which came first, the moth or the flower?
Why does one have to be first? Why not co-evolve?
I love the input from the guests, but I wish the host would just shut up and let them complete a thought without all the interjections.
I love these guys!
How does evolution know what it's doing better along the way? Like how does evolution know what's working and what's not?
if something doesn't work then the organism probably won't live to breed
@@sidarthur8706 Totally that makes sense.
The organism dies off if their mutation is bad but survives and BREEDS if it bis a good mutation!
this is adorable. I wish I had this kind of relationship with my sibling.
Evan Nagel - first you gotta be this smart. Kidding!
The twist. ^^
"Yeah... I did that"
Explain the Cambrian explosion.
They cant
that's not that mysterious, it's a very long period of time over which hard bodied animals emerged and diversified. i'll tell you something that's infinitely more interesting and mysterious. have a read about the francevillian snd ediacaran biota
Hellstrom's Hive by Frank Herbert
1973
Wow, have not heard that name in a while.
Is that the one where a maniac scientist made people thar comnunicated like ants?
@@ineversleep9715 ,
That's the one.
@@markwac247 a few years ago, i found a used bookstore that had lots of his out of print stuff.
The Eyes of Heisenberg is also very good.
Superb.
The power of language. People call the ways that organisms have evolved in relation to survival pressures and opportunities survival strategies, but a strategy is predicated on an intelligence or consciousness planning something out and executing that plan. But current evolutionary theory is based on a non directed, non intelligently designed process. So using that language leads the mind into a contradictory theory according to most scientists who study evolution. what if we called them evolutionary niches, or emergent niches due to evolutionary processes.
Imagine being the person who designed these flowers and insects that
work together in cooperation from the start. Then somewhere in the
future, listening to this conversation. What would you think?
This example is deeply unimpressive I must say, for it does not in any convincing way provide evidence for evolution to the contrary of alternative hypotheses. Just on a basic level, so long as the flower requires pollination in some way would necessitate that a something out there has the ability to pollinate it, for otherwise the flower would simply not exist, regardless of whether or not the trait was evolved through deep time. Furthermore the design hypothesis would predict much the same thing: as a simple analogy one would expect that a deep screw hole would be accompanied by a long screw, if then the natural world were to be intelligently designed one would expect much the same relationship between the flower and the moth. It instead seems much less likely that an evolutionary process would lead to such exclusivity, for two distinct species to simultaneously evolve specialized symbiotic traits over deep time would be an incredibly fragile method with little resilience to environmental pressures.
When a room with two people in it hits an average of 300-350 iq.
They're both somewhere between 120-150 a pop. Anything above 150 is usually highly correlated with communicative and behavioral disorders, and high IQ doesn't necessarily make someone a good scientist/speaker, although once again, it's highly correlated between certain ranges
Love this show
How then can non-haploid species behave eusocially? I wouldn't have thought it was possible
Anything goes in bug land.
They foundation of evolutionary discussion is built on ambiguous and vague definitions. His “prediction” wasn’t and could not be empirically verifiable. Behaviors are not solely determinable by DNA (evolutionary theory employs environmental causes). So the guy guessed and someone else found a match. Hardly a prediction.
great rug
great hug
magic can be helpful
drwestlund - no shortage of that in today's scientism.
They claimed to be wise but became fools
Highly Improbable? Not Impossible?
The monarch butterfly is left alone by predators because it puts out a chemical that makes it taste horrible. The viceroy butterfly looks just like the monarch so it will be left alone by predators. These little critters on our planet are smart.
Adorable brothers
The hair
Great minds
Moths are so bad ass
Very charming couple!
Love it
The second smartest guys on the planet - thx mel
Didn't Darwin say black people just came down from the trees, as brilliant as you might think Darwin was he was living in 19th century in a world built on colonialism and the idea that the Anglo-Saxon or Aryan were superior, he turned that mindset into to thinking Aryan were the most evolved, we really should re-evaluate our evolution and how we came to be.
I predicted then sensed contrivance.
Then found it in your own comment, no less.
No mathematical evolutionary dynamics No science
Mycroft & Sherlock
I like these guys.
Ooohh ! Sneaky!!!!!
I hereby nominate CornPop for 2020 Presidential candidate, he's one bad dude
How many Weinsteins does it take to stain my wine machine? Say it 6x
Not hard, stain needs to be closer to Weinstein and machine isn’t a hard word to say
My Movers wasn’t supposed to be hard, just to waste your time
Weinstein washes wine clean with brine steam
Sean Heywood just saying, there’s an element to tongue twisters that this doesn’t achieve
My Movers Inc Moving I Didn’t realize I was talking to such an expert in tongue twisters
Eric really showed off his vast intellect with the formation of the last sentence. #EndBoss
#WriteInAndrewYang
3:56 English Subtitles, the word find is f***
Haha. It kind of sounds like that's what he said, I can understand why the subtitles got confused
Until we start mssing with human genomes seriously its hard to predict our evolution
0Guiltyone0 - that'll be interesting. As we're all under house arrest at present we can clearly see the boundaries of science. Seems to go toward Murphy's Law for the most part. Trust me, these (not these two literally) egg heads and the other bone heads that are their friends will fuck it up royally. You'll end up with pig people on drugs, smiling all the while. Ta, ta!
You can say hive mind, fellas.
Where does the…point of evolution actually happen? Over the course of our lives, basically? It kind of seems like evolution theory requires intelligent design to be accurate, doesn’t it? How does the intelligence work? Two things evolved side by side? A long tongue and an orchid? It’s obvious things evolve, but I struggle with the point of change. And what happens to the infinite creatures between two creatures? Oh, they die off basically?
Random mutations are the change and yes the less successful thing dies off.
they totally party
Comments are censored FYI
I see. Why? We're watching because we like to, then sticking around for a little light hearted needling. That's not so bad. They're getting the bump from the view count. Careful Mr. Censor, you'll be losing money if you keep it up.
Weinstein washes wine clean with brine steam
Anyone else feel kinda stupid while watching this?
Quite the opposite
Not at all ,I'm proper clever me.
Balance your brain and watch these guys talk daily along with social media junk food
I find this conversation interresting because your worldview is totally different from mine. You see flowers investing in structure due to the structure of an insect, I see nature mirror itself. You see males being files, I see nature rebound in order to develope. You talk about underground social breeding systems, I see nature distribute opportunities both in the ground and in the air. I guess its because I am Norwegian and you American. Listen to the Norwegian songwriter/singer Aurora and her song the seed.
I wrote males being files - it was supposed to be « males being fooled».
The auto-writer also wrote rebound - should have been rebounce.
😂
Hiw did you interpret what I said?
Maybe you would understand if I use other words: Without strong force there would be no mass, no nucleus. Without el force there would be no energy to build molecules. Natural forces are also able to create evolution. Partly because forces work in different fields, partly because of transformation of quarks. Neutreon becomes proton and start to interact with el field. Weinstein sees men being fooled, I see natural forces slowly creating transformation. Superorganism: Fungal networks excists all over the world. They help trees to survive. Fungus increase a riots surface area by 1000x. Its just how nature works.
Geometric UNity 2020
Y'all need to figure out them haircuts.
These men are brilliant the last thing they care about is what their hair looks like open your ears Buddy not your eyes
What would convince a moth with a short tong and its children and their children and so on to keep on trying to reach down to the very long flower bottom for millions of years until it forces itself to develop a long perfectly matching tong? Or random mutation happeninig iteratively over the same organ? What they talk sounds like wishful thinking
Some moths have tongues that a little longer than average, some have tongues a little shorter. As the flowers get deeper, the shorter-tongued moths have less to eat than the longer-tongued, so there is selection pressure for longer tongues. The shorter-tongued moths will make a smaller genetic contribution to the next generation of moths. And yes, there can be many random mutations over time that modify the same organ (not always by modifying the same gene).
@Janna Kruger Do you understand how a gradual deepening of the flowers could bring about a gradual lengthening of moth tongues?
@@VidkunQL At some point the deepening of the flower or the lengthening of the tongue must correspond with competitive success. If a flower were to be too deep for the majority of moths due to mutation, the trait would be disadvantageous and ought to be negatively favoured, leading to the reduction of said trait. If a moth were to waste resources on a longer tongue which is unnecessary for most flowers, that trait too would not be favoured, and likewise it will tend to be eliminated. Even if we arbitrarily invoke genetic drift as the initial means by which the process takes place, every point essentially becomes a neutral zone in which neither being deeper or shallower in the case of the flower, nor longer or shorter in the case of the tongue is any more or less beneficial for either species. If this is the case then one would not expect a continuous deepening of the flower or lengthening of the tongue but rather a back and forth where the depths of flowers pollinated by moths follows something of a normal distribution.
@@lisleigfried4660 You're right, a _sudden_ change that put a moth or a flower well outside the distribution of its species would be selected against. But a _slight_ change that nudged the moth or flower toward the high end of the distribution would be advantageous. The moth species and orchid species evolve _together._
@@VidkunQL If a change is slight enough then it is going to be subject to less selection and more drift. Since new traits or even variations on old traits (corresponding to changes in genetics rather than epigenetics) are a minority occurrence, there would need to be a major advantage for it to persist in the long term, which we are arbitrarily suggesting given that the phenomenon exists.
As a whole this example seems much more like "lock and key" than anything else. It's certainly possible to conjure a way in which the evolutionary process could produce the "key" given that the "lock" is observed, but this prediction in and of itself is not in exclusion to all other hypotheses.
It seems to me that the fact of a deep flower with nectar implies that a species exists to access it, regardless of how either species arises. My explanation in the previous comment is meant to demonstrate how the phenomena is just one of many potential phenomena that can be expected given the evolutionary process, and it is not inherently the most likely one.