Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions directed at socialists within a friendly, relaxed and welcoming environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating and join the subreddit r/AmericanCommunist:
R1. No Non-Socialist Answers, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions.
R2. No Trolling, including concern trolling.
R3. No Sectarianism, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
R4. We fully and firmly support Palestine, Novorossiya, and Multipolarity.
R5. We stand with Iran
R6. Good Faith and High Quality Conversation
Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it.
If you say shit that is clearly stupid shit, people will assume what you say has a high chance to contain stupid shit. In other words no one will take you seriously.
Independent thought is not believing wild hypothesis that cannot be demonstrated: that's religion
I know this sub was taken over by nazbols but I thought you guys were at least smart enough to not deny something as empirically proven and well known as genes lmao
A gatekeeper because he calls out factually incorrect statements from someone who seemingly only accepts biology that can be derived from Marxist theory.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
About to point this out. This is ridiculously dumb. Like he takes a point of “the sperm doesn’t just carry genetic code” which is true then goes “genes are made up”
Like even if he wants to make this claim. Why do biological offspring have similar features to their parents (and I’m not talking about behavior, because he can make the environment shapes you argument), what about heritable diseases through genes, what about Cancer? If genes don’t exist, how would a cell be coded to malignantly keep expanding to make tumors?
Guys, don’t listen to this shit. Just like all things, there can be a hint of truth to what he’s saying, and he’s right from the aspect we shouldn’t put genes societally on a pedestal (we should be focusing on how the diversity of genes makes for a more equitable society, rather than choosing what genetics are “best”), but saying genes don’t exist is purely ignoring reality itself. Next he’s going to say some stupid shit like “your brain has no effect on how you behave” and loop it in some historical straw man point or religion.
You can be pro-intellectual, pro-science, and advocate for workers rights.
Okay, then why doesn’t he just make the claim that your environment has more of an impact than your genes? Because that in itself can be true. Saying genes aren’t real is literally denying basic science.
Edit: in terms of heritability, genes do allow for the schematic of how anyone is made. It’s the blueprint of how any living being is made. Some things ARE heritable (eye color, hair, height, certain genetic diseases, etc). He can call into question the moral character of Mendel, but Mendel was inherently correct with genes.
If inheritance isn't reducible to 'units,' then there is no gene
No one suggested that DNA is somehow not crucial to heredity, the key concept here is the 'living system' and integrative aspects that have actually caused the notion of the 'gene' to more and more be abstracted from what it was posited as in 1909 long before the discovery of DNA
DNA itself actually disproves the notion of a 'gene'
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
I guess you could make the whole philosophical argument that the term gene itself has never been proven to exist, because of different types of RNA that can splice genetic code differently to produce cells that alter a phenotype and this comes from genetic code (i.e. that the genes are not universal per a specific outcome), but genetic code literally does produce certain phenotypes in someone that is not changeable unless you altered the code itself.
Look. I’m not here to say your genes make up everything about someone because they don’t. It’s way more complex than that. Certain genes or genetic code can be altered due to methylation differences (epigenetics) that can result in a change of phenotypes, but again, what is this a baseline result of genetic code.
No one argued that phenotypic traits are not tied to organism development and cellular metabolism
What's being contested is whether that development is 'determined' by nucleotide base pair sequences, or whether there is a more integrative system in which environment/diet/maturation/stressors etc. are just as if not more determinative of these metabolic processes
Okay, now I get the point here. But I hate to tell him this, it’s still genes.
This is coming from someone with a research background in neuroscience.
You are right that it isn’t as black and white as it seems, and yes, environmental, nutritional, maturations, and stressors are all huge predictors just AS MUCH as genes in a person, why, because they allow for what’s referred to as “epigenetic changes” that can allow for certain pieces for genetic code to be altered.
Even looking at a zoom out scope in the brain, there is something called “neuroplasticity” where if you change how you behave in a specific way, change your environment, lower your stressors, etc, the neurons in your brain is able to branch out in different ways to open up new pathways for differing behavior. But these alterations are made due to epigenetics, which were laid out in our genetic code.
But again, this means that genes do exist. It’s just not as black and white as Mendel version.
Fine, if you need me to give you an example, I’ll give you one.
We’ll do an example of ONE gene that creates a disease.
Albinism. A defective TYR gene creates the lack of pigment in a human, which results in the disease. Is this sufficient enough for you, or are you going to go “well it’s mutated therefore it isn’t a gene”, its some other pejorative term that I came up with out of the figment of my imagination.
Exactly. Bill Clinton promised a cure for cancer and all of these new treatments and medications within 10 years after it was supposedly 'mostly complete'
China has been the first to approve commercial gene therapy products. ‘Gendicine’ and ‘Oncorine’ target the p53 tumour suppressor gene to aid tumour lysis.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
Productive forces and relations of production aren't in anyone's head, it's an actually existing and objective social reality independent of any 'concept'
DNA material made of specific amino acid pairs with specific amino acid sequences that when expressed produce specific traits via changes in development and metabolism isn’t in anyone’s head either.
Genes involved in regulation and signaling have been observed, not one standalone gene. For complex traits, what’s identified are gene variants and expression changes across a pathway, not a single causal gene.
Im sure theres something real under this worth discussing, but this video is like 9 and a half minutes of him calling people epstein cattle pedophiles.
This doesnt seem like the way forward in regards to discussing this.
He's referencing, i think, the complexities of epigenetics and gene regulation. It's so complex and flexible and backwards and forwards regulated that a gene present in one person may be expressed completely differently in the proteome to it's expression in another person. The debate among biologists then was around whether it is sensible to talk in terms of discrete genes anymore, given that the more we learn the less accurate it seems. His explanations could use some work.
Like I said, Im sure there is a discussion to be had, and Im also sure this is an incredibly barbaric and backwards way of framing that discussion.
I want to like the dude but theres just certain things he does that are so dumb optically. Hes usually correct in analysis but then ruins it by saying something so out of pocket that he'll almost never be taken seriously.
Agreed, it's also such an academic point, only biology nerds will even know what he's on about and it's not a controversy, just an interesting semantic and epistemological distinction. Why is he so mad? If I've understood him, which I maybe haven't.
It doesn't seem so based on his videos. He seems very open to grandstand, call people names and use ever phallacy in the book but actual, intellectual debate? Nah.
Lmao this is fucking ridiculous. Yes “gene skepticism” is a real thing with some merit. But he is going much further and basically saying biologists know nothing about DNA. And why is he so distrustful? Because they are “pederast Epstein scientists” operating on “nonsense pagan notions”. JFC just look how many cuts this short video has, trying to make something semi-coherent from this lunatic’s ramblings.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
I say that because I see other comments saying “actually he has a point because gene skepticism is a thing”. When gene skepticism isn’t even what he’s really discussing in this video.
Calling it a topic of discussion doesn't give it much more merit. Nail polish is a topic of discussion. Flat Earth is a philosophy. It'd be neat to see this guy make a point without calling dead people pedophiles. Like it or not, the label doesn't magically invalidate skill or knowledge a POS pedophile might have.
It relies on the fact that the concept of 'gene' predates the discovery of DNA and has actually become more 'abstract' and less tied to 1:1 correspondence between phenotype and molecular 'units' since that term was coined
It predates the discovery because genes are easily observed by the naked eye. DNA was first observed only 4 years after Mendel's studies. That's not the groundbreaking point you make it out to be.
You'd have a point if this were about aqueous humors, but the discovery of DNA only helped Mendel's case. Your argument is essentially that some people moved the goal posts for what genes are, and they therefore don't exist?
This is eerily similar to the "missing link" arguments we see against evolution. At what point will a gene be proven to exist to you?
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
I can't speak to how seriously it's taken, and I'm not necessarily arguing that.
I'm not convinced that it being taken seriously is a high enough bar to believe the stance outright. I can see how this is valuable, in that it scrutinizes status quo and (in my short time seeing this) appears to highlight how people can wrongly derive facts from an abstract.
I'll ask then, what is satisfactory proof that a gene exists?
Another problem with this common definition is that it is based on an overly simplistic account of DNA expression. According to this simple account, a gene is a sequence of nucleotides in DNA that is transcribed into a sequence of nucleotides making up a messenger RNA molecule that is in turn translated into sequence of amino acids that forms a polypeptide. (Biologists talk as if genes “produce the polypeptide molecules” or “provide the information for the polypeptide”.) The real situation of DNA expression, however, is often far more complex.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
I don't know why I watched all of it but I suspect I might've lost some braincells. I knew Haz had some stupid things to say in writing but I thought at least he would've been a good debater. Now I know that the only thing he apparently can do is throw phallacies and slurs in your face and then claim he "curb stomped" you in debate.
As someone who started to study genetics before having to medically withdraw I'll just say this. Occam's razor, friends. If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, you can pretty confidently say that it's a duck. If we can identify, extract, insert, repair, predict, and trace genes, then I'd say even the best argument (which is about the inconsistent or ambiguous use of the term) is at best philosophical and at worst completely arbitrarily contrarian. It just feels like, what point are you even trying to make here? I'm really trying to understand because even in science these types of issues can be worthwhile to explore. Quantum mechanics famously has an example of this. But I struggle to see how even in the future anything more than a refinement of terminology could be drawn from this.
That's the worst part of his argument. He's trying to court people who are mad about the same things, rather than convince "redditors".
One cannot convince an adversary by talking down to them. People put up walls the moment they feel insulted, killing useful discussions. Nobody feels inclined to internalize arguments from a rando who just judges them instantly.
Yes, genes are biological traits from our material history of common ancestors.
"Genes are made up of DNA. Each chromosome contains many genes."
— MedicinePlus
My time is short to lecture, it's up to you to read On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859). Feel free to learn his thesis about evolutionary biology and natural selection.
Charles Darwin was a Lamarckist as concerns heredity. He also did not believe in 'genes' and though organisms maturation & diet & environment determined development
Read for yourself, please:
"In fact the basic ideas of Marxism are remarkably simple. They explain, as no other set of ideas can, the society in which we live. They make sense of a world wracked by crises."
There's a lot of other scientific concepts that are even bigger than genetics that are definitely false so I find the proposition compelling and within reason to contemplate. After looking into the problems with virology you get the impression that genetics is mostly a lot of woowoo used to make a lot highly questionable claims based on observations scientists understand almost nothing about, and that their interpretations are highly subjective. If you give 10 geneticists the same DNA sample, you will get 10 different opinions which all contradict each other, hardly the scientific precision suitable for use in criminal trials which we are led to believe genetics is based on.
oh girl i’m not debating it one way or another. not only am i not a geneticist i’m also not read up on the research. gene skepticism is super interesting, very valuable stuff.
i don’t know why the fuck this guy is talking about it though, while pulling ad hominem attacks and pseudoscience claims out of his butthole while dismissing science as a whole. haz loves to act like he knows things and shits on everyone else. most dismissive, anti-intellectual, regressive, reactionary garbage can to ever disgrace communism. yuck.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
"The molecular gene is a sequence of nucleotides in DNA that is transcribed to produce a functional RNA. There are two types of molecular genes: protein-coding genes and non-coding genes. During gene expression (the synthesis of RNA or protein from a gene), DNA is first copied into RNA. RNA can be directly functional or be the intermediate template for the synthesis of a protein."
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
It's true that we don't know exactly how genes become an organism, but nothing he has said disprove genes. I have a guess what he is actually trying to argue, but it's not that genes don't exist.
I listened to this for a while waiting for him to make a coherent point, all i could tease out is this guy doesn't understand how genes work and is very confident he can win debates with some other group that thinks something strange? Not even wrong is probably the best assessment.
I pity this kind of people. What f... up sh... happened in their lives to make them be this petty excuse for a human being. These are lost people in need of love in their lives.
marxism is not a psychological science, nor is it an individualised philosophy of self enlightenment. Marxism is not about individual behaviours, its emergent social structures, even if marxism was a psychological system marxists themselves wouldn't somehow be seperate autonomous entities from whatever pre-determined mechanistic forces he would claim drive human behaviour. Marxism already struggles enough predicting exact outcomes in society, let alone in individuals.
There are a billion variations of the red-pill going against the grain of society philosophies, but marxism is not one of them. This guy is just a self aggrandising prick. Taking vulgar marxism to its most extreme.
The weaponisation of historical specificity against biology in general adds nothing to his argument against genes as well. Just because we are in the information age and therefore out explanations of biological concept revolves around our understanding of information via computers and data does not make the model incorrect. Our counting system is based on 10 fingers. Does that mean we can't do maths? No. It's a total non-argument. If society is divided into marxists vs sheeple then this person would fit into the latter anyway, since he clearly does not understand the material or what points it actually argues.
Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions directed at socialists within a friendly, relaxed and welcoming environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating and join the subreddit r/AmericanCommunist:
R1. No Non-Socialist Answers, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions.
R2. No Trolling, including concern trolling.
R3. No Sectarianism, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
R4. We fully and firmly support Palestine, Novorossiya, and Multipolarity.
R5. We stand with Iran
R6. Good Faith and High Quality Conversation
Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
Yeah, guy clearly never took a biology class. This is what you get when you do politics based on vibes people
A gene has never been proven to exist
Gene is a name we give to something that has been observed.
It could be called Hank instead of Gene, once observed it was bound to have a name.
"We just named it that..."
I didn't ask what you named it. You could call a unicorn a 'whatsit" and that still wouldn't mean it exists
A 'gene' has never been observed
Re-watch the first 20 seconds.
I have. It is stupid and cringe.
If you say shit that is clearly stupid shit, people will assume what you say has a high chance to contain stupid shit. In other words no one will take you seriously.
Independent thought is not believing wild hypothesis that cannot be demonstrated: that's religion
The onus is on you to prove that a gene exists. You can't and this is upsetting.
It's actually a serious topic in the philosophy of biology, it's called Gene Skepticism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-genetics/#GenSke
Yeah and that paper is not saying what this guy is saying
[removed]
"This man has no authority to speak on this topic! "
-- Man with no authority to speak on this topic
You're just a gatekeeper
There is a difference between claiming to be a horse and pointing out that someone is not a horse
Go watch Haz's debate on this topic from the other day, he also spoke with Genetics grad students: https://kick.com/infrared/videos/b2e02cb7-5f90-448f-9a6e-5b923d5dba6d
No
I know this sub was taken over by nazbols but I thought you guys were at least smart enough to not deny something as empirically proven and well known as genes lmao
A gatekeeper because he calls out factually incorrect statements from someone who seemingly only accepts biology that can be derived from Marxist theory.
A gene has never been proven to exist
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
Would love to see him debate Nick Fuentes.
Groyper cattle are too afraid. Haz has given an open invitation for years but little boy Fuentes keeps running away.
It’s funny how both left and right authoritarians are anti-intellectual
About to point this out. This is ridiculously dumb. Like he takes a point of “the sperm doesn’t just carry genetic code” which is true then goes “genes are made up”
Like even if he wants to make this claim. Why do biological offspring have similar features to their parents (and I’m not talking about behavior, because he can make the environment shapes you argument), what about heritable diseases through genes, what about Cancer? If genes don’t exist, how would a cell be coded to malignantly keep expanding to make tumors?
Guys, don’t listen to this shit. Just like all things, there can be a hint of truth to what he’s saying, and he’s right from the aspect we shouldn’t put genes societally on a pedestal (we should be focusing on how the diversity of genes makes for a more equitable society, rather than choosing what genetics are “best”), but saying genes don’t exist is purely ignoring reality itself. Next he’s going to say some stupid shit like “your brain has no effect on how you behave” and loop it in some historical straw man point or religion.
You can be pro-intellectual, pro-science, and advocate for workers rights.
Sperm only carries half of the genetic code
Yeah and where does the other half come from? The egg. What’s the point being made here?
He in no way denies heritability, he's just saying genes aren't responsible or solely responsible for it
Okay, then why doesn’t he just make the claim that your environment has more of an impact than your genes? Because that in itself can be true. Saying genes aren’t real is literally denying basic science.
Edit: in terms of heritability, genes do allow for the schematic of how anyone is made. It’s the blueprint of how any living being is made. Some things ARE heritable (eye color, hair, height, certain genetic diseases, etc). He can call into question the moral character of Mendel, but Mendel was inherently correct with genes.
A gene has never been proven to exist
Explain heredity without using the concept of genes
Inheritance of acquired characteristics
How are they inherited? (Inherited is a derivative of heritability you defined a word with itself, try again)
If inheritance isn't reducible to 'units,' then there is no gene
No one suggested that DNA is somehow not crucial to heredity, the key concept here is the 'living system' and integrative aspects that have actually caused the notion of the 'gene' to more and more be abstracted from what it was posited as in 1909 long before the discovery of DNA
DNA itself actually disproves the notion of a 'gene'
Don’t try even to debate the dude below you. It’s not worth it. He’s too far gone.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
What 'gene' was observed?
I guess you could make the whole philosophical argument that the term gene itself has never been proven to exist, because of different types of RNA that can splice genetic code differently to produce cells that alter a phenotype and this comes from genetic code (i.e. that the genes are not universal per a specific outcome), but genetic code literally does produce certain phenotypes in someone that is not changeable unless you altered the code itself.
Look. I’m not here to say your genes make up everything about someone because they don’t. It’s way more complex than that. Certain genes or genetic code can be altered due to methylation differences (epigenetics) that can result in a change of phenotypes, but again, what is this a baseline result of genetic code.
No one argued that phenotypic traits are not tied to organism development and cellular metabolism
What's being contested is whether that development is 'determined' by nucleotide base pair sequences, or whether there is a more integrative system in which environment/diet/maturation/stressors etc. are just as if not more determinative of these metabolic processes
Okay, now I get the point here. But I hate to tell him this, it’s still genes.
This is coming from someone with a research background in neuroscience.
You are right that it isn’t as black and white as it seems, and yes, environmental, nutritional, maturations, and stressors are all huge predictors just AS MUCH as genes in a person, why, because they allow for what’s referred to as “epigenetic changes” that can allow for certain pieces for genetic code to be altered.
Even looking at a zoom out scope in the brain, there is something called “neuroplasticity” where if you change how you behave in a specific way, change your environment, lower your stressors, etc, the neurons in your brain is able to branch out in different ways to open up new pathways for differing behavior. But these alterations are made due to epigenetics, which were laid out in our genetic code.
But again, this means that genes do exist. It’s just not as black and white as Mendel version.
So then point to the 'gene' if you think 'it's still genes'
Fine, if you need me to give you an example, I’ll give you one.
We’ll do an example of ONE gene that creates a disease.
Albinism. A defective TYR gene creates the lack of pigment in a human, which results in the disease. Is this sufficient enough for you, or are you going to go “well it’s mutated therefore it isn’t a gene”, its some other pejorative term that I came up with out of the figment of my imagination.
$3.1 billion and all I got was this lousy sequence
Exactly. Bill Clinton promised a cure for cancer and all of these new treatments and medications within 10 years after it was supposedly 'mostly complete'
Still nothing
Even China knows genes exist:
Again, an SNP is not a 'gene'
Gene vs. SNP - What's the Difference?
A gene has never been proven to exist
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
What 'gene' was observed?
Neither has a letter. Concepts exist
A 'gene' is simply an abstract concept rather than something that exists in objective reality, yes
And concepts exist like “socialism”
Socialism isn't a 'concept' but a really existing development between revolutionized productive forces & outdated relations of production
Nice concept, comrade
Productive forces and relations of production aren't in anyone's head, it's an actually existing and objective social reality independent of any 'concept'
DNA material made of specific amino acid pairs with specific amino acid sequences that when expressed produce specific traits via changes in development and metabolism isn’t in anyone’s head either.
DNA is not made of 'amino acid pairs"
"Anti-Intellectual"
And it's you refusing to even entertain this topic because you've decided a priori that "Genes" are a sacred truth, ignoring that in the philosophy of biology the existence of "genes" is very much an open question.
Describe heredity without using the concept of genes
[removed]
Where is the 'gene?'
Genes involved in regulation and signaling have been observed, not one standalone gene. For complex traits, what’s identified are gene variants and expression changes across a pathway, not a single causal gene.
Im sure theres something real under this worth discussing, but this video is like 9 and a half minutes of him calling people epstein cattle pedophiles.
This doesnt seem like the way forward in regards to discussing this.
He's referencing, i think, the complexities of epigenetics and gene regulation. It's so complex and flexible and backwards and forwards regulated that a gene present in one person may be expressed completely differently in the proteome to it's expression in another person. The debate among biologists then was around whether it is sensible to talk in terms of discrete genes anymore, given that the more we learn the less accurate it seems. His explanations could use some work.
Like I said, Im sure there is a discussion to be had, and Im also sure this is an incredibly barbaric and backwards way of framing that discussion.
I want to like the dude but theres just certain things he does that are so dumb optically. Hes usually correct in analysis but then ruins it by saying something so out of pocket that he'll almost never be taken seriously.
Agreed, it's also such an academic point, only biology nerds will even know what he's on about and it's not a controversy, just an interesting semantic and epistemological distinction. Why is he so mad? If I've understood him, which I maybe haven't.
Wow this is really dumb.
than i think you should debate him, haz is very open to discussing things
It doesn't seem so based on his videos. He seems very open to grandstand, call people names and use ever phallacy in the book but actual, intellectual debate? Nah.
Lmao this is fucking ridiculous. Yes “gene skepticism” is a real thing with some merit. But he is going much further and basically saying biologists know nothing about DNA. And why is he so distrustful? Because they are “pederast Epstein scientists” operating on “nonsense pagan notions”. JFC just look how many cuts this short video has, trying to make something semi-coherent from this lunatic’s ramblings.
A gene has never been proven to exist
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
What 'gene' was observed?
Bot. Stop replying with the same shill comment on everyone's comments here
I am correct
You are a bot
Everything I said is correct
This is where MAGA communism gets you. Infact this might be the dumbest shit I've seen on this site, and that's including all the MAGA shit.
He goes further. So what? Do you wanna actually engage with the topic or are you just here to gatekeep the conversation?
I say that because I see other comments saying “actually he has a point because gene skepticism is a thing”. When gene skepticism isn’t even what he’s really discussing in this video.
It's funny to see people dismiss this topic, when it's an actual topic of discussion in the philosophy of biology and is even listed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-genetics/#GenSke
Calling it a topic of discussion doesn't give it much more merit. Nail polish is a topic of discussion. Flat Earth is a philosophy. It'd be neat to see this guy make a point without calling dead people pedophiles. Like it or not, the label doesn't magically invalidate skill or knowledge a POS pedophile might have.
I'd like to see him henpeck the research itself.
A gene has never been proven to exist
So, does the argument rely on the abstract nature of the term?
It relies on the fact that the concept of 'gene' predates the discovery of DNA and has actually become more 'abstract' and less tied to 1:1 correspondence between phenotype and molecular 'units' since that term was coined
How so?
Yeah, so it's what the guy above said
So what 'gene' are you suggesting exists?
It predates the discovery because genes are easily observed by the naked eye. DNA was first observed only 4 years after Mendel's studies. That's not the groundbreaking point you make it out to be.
You'd have a point if this were about aqueous humors, but the discovery of DNA only helped Mendel's case. Your argument is essentially that some people moved the goal posts for what genes are, and they therefore don't exist?
This is eerily similar to the "missing link" arguments we see against evolution. At what point will a gene be proven to exist to you?
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/105/2/215/1573748
Mendel actually faked his data, but Mendel did not posit any 'gene'
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
What 'gene' was observed?
It's a serious position within the philosophy of biology.
I can't speak to how seriously it's taken, and I'm not necessarily arguing that.
I'm not convinced that it being taken seriously is a high enough bar to believe the stance outright. I can see how this is valuable, in that it scrutinizes status quo and (in my short time seeing this) appears to highlight how people can wrongly derive facts from an abstract.
I'll ask then, what is satisfactory proof that a gene exists?
Yeah and that paper is not saying what this guy is saying
Then that would mean Haz is saying something interesting and not just rehashing a dead horse.
Yeah talking out of your arse is also not rehashing, but interesting? Fck no
In fact it is saying exactly what he's saying
Nope it does not, do not cherry pick to fit your ignorant narrative. Even this quote do not agree, fck where did you guys learn to read?
[removed]
Seems like it. Apparently science can’t be trusted because biologists are a bunch of Epstein pedophiles and pagans.
A gene has never been proven to exist
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
What 'gene' was observed?
What's wrong with the theory though? Stop gatekeeping.
I don't know why I watched all of it but I suspect I might've lost some braincells. I knew Haz had some stupid things to say in writing but I thought at least he would've been a good debater. Now I know that the only thing he apparently can do is throw phallacies and slurs in your face and then claim he "curb stomped" you in debate.
You should debate him and destroy his arguments.
Even if I logically dismantled his arguments he would probably call me a retard and disregard everything I said so what's the point exactly?
No, it would be a debate. Are you running?
Sure, if it would be an actual debate I'd love to. We've already discussed here where I disproved his false notion that blood groups aren't determined by a gene. He hasn't called me a retard yet but I expect it any minute now.
That's not Haz. I will tag you when his debate space is next up.
As someone who started to study genetics before having to medically withdraw I'll just say this. Occam's razor, friends. If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, you can pretty confidently say that it's a duck. If we can identify, extract, insert, repair, predict, and trace genes, then I'd say even the best argument (which is about the inconsistent or ambiguous use of the term) is at best philosophical and at worst completely arbitrarily contrarian. It just feels like, what point are you even trying to make here? I'm really trying to understand because even in science these types of issues can be worthwhile to explore. Quantum mechanics famously has an example of this. But I struggle to see how even in the future anything more than a refinement of terminology could be drawn from this.
I honestly tried to listen but guy has a really abrasive delivery
That's the worst part of his argument. He's trying to court people who are mad about the same things, rather than convince "redditors".
One cannot convince an adversary by talking down to them. People put up walls the moment they feel insulted, killing useful discussions. Nobody feels inclined to internalize arguments from a rando who just judges them instantly.
A gene has never been proven to exist
Why are you propagandizing? You are not discussing anything.
You want to discuss something that has never been proven to exist? Or do you have proof it exists?
lol okay? And?
so why believe in something if you can't prove it exists?
Dude it’s not something that affects me or my life in any meaningful way. I really don’t give a shit and it’s weird you’re pushing this so hard lol
Exactly, 'genes' don't affect anyone's life
They don't even exist
I’m gonna go ahead and trust the scientists on this one but I respect your dedication
Here's a scientist:
Yes, genes are biological traits from our material history of common ancestors. "Genes are made up of DNA. Each chromosome contains many genes." — MedicinePlus
So point to a gene then
My time is short to lecture, it's up to you to read On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1859). Feel free to learn his thesis about evolutionary biology and natural selection.
Charles Darwin was a Lamarckist as concerns heredity. He also did not believe in 'genes' and though organisms maturation & diet & environment determined development
Why argue about biology? This is a sociology subreddit.
Marxism is not sociology
That's a false claim. Marxism is a simple materialist method that studies social class struggles and condemns Classical economic theory.
No, it's a correct claim
Read for yourself, please: "In fact the basic ideas of Marxism are remarkably simple. They explain, as no other set of ideas can, the society in which we live. They make sense of a world wracked by crises."
— Chris Harman, How Marxism Works (1979)
What revolution or Communist Party did Chris Harman lead?
That's not a Marxist lol
Trotskyism is anti-Marxist, actually
I love that he's discussing this. It's a fascinating topic that most leftists wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole
Agreed, discourse against what's conventionally accepted is healthy.
There's a lot of other scientific concepts that are even bigger than genetics that are definitely false so I find the proposition compelling and within reason to contemplate. After looking into the problems with virology you get the impression that genetics is mostly a lot of woowoo used to make a lot highly questionable claims based on observations scientists understand almost nothing about, and that their interpretations are highly subjective. If you give 10 geneticists the same DNA sample, you will get 10 different opinions which all contradict each other, hardly the scientific precision suitable for use in criminal trials which we are led to believe genetics is based on.
[removed]
A gene has never been proven to exist
“scientists literally have no fucking clue” - most annoying fed
But you’re talking about science??
So then what's the gene you think exists?
oh girl i’m not debating it one way or another. not only am i not a geneticist i’m also not read up on the research. gene skepticism is super interesting, very valuable stuff.
i don’t know why the fuck this guy is talking about it though, while pulling ad hominem attacks and pseudoscience claims out of his butthole while dismissing science as a whole. haz loves to act like he knows things and shits on everyone else. most dismissive, anti-intellectual, regressive, reactionary garbage can to ever disgrace communism. yuck.
You lost the debate, you mean
What did he say that is pseudoscientific?
'Genes' are reactionary garbage. That's the point HAz is making, and it's true
if i lost the debate why are you trying to reopen it? you’re not just gonna leave me with my massive L?
you never showed a 'gene' exists
i wasn’t trying to…? most literate ACP lol
Still no proof of a 'gene' huh?
DNA RNA and genes were invented by pedos? lol
A gene has never been proven to exist
Tell that to Sydney Sweeney.
She was debunked
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
I'd like to see the observations and their studies. I'm inclined to believe you, but you didn't share a study.
Genes were, yes.
Does the fact they were pedophiles taint their research? Ad hominem is a fallacy.
The Mendelian "Gene" concept predates the discovery of DNA.
By only 4 years.
A gene has never been proven to exist
[removed]
I am correct
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
What 'gene' was observed?
[removed]
A gene has never been proven to exist
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
What 'gene' was observed?
[removed]
A gene has never been proven to exist
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
[removed]
A gene has never been proven to exist
"The molecular gene is a sequence of nucleotides in DNA that is transcribed to produce a functional RNA. There are two types of molecular genes: protein-coding genes and non-coding genes. During gene expression (the synthesis of RNA or protein from a gene), DNA is first copied into RNA. RNA can be directly functional or be the intermediate template for the synthesis of a protein."
You are just wrong. Sorry. Genetics has been a scientific field since the mid 19th century.
A gene has never been proven to exist
A protein is not a trait, and non-coding sequences are not 'genes'
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
[removed]
yes, because they believe in genes, unlike Communists such as Comrade Haz al-Din
[removed]
Haz is there but, and but no gene is
Stop spreading this stupid lie. Genes have been observed decades ago.
Do we understand 100% how they work and interact? Not even close, but genes are observed and documented and it is known what a sizable amount of them does.
What 'gene' was observed?
[removed]
It's true that we don't know exactly how genes become an organism, but nothing he has said disprove genes. I have a guess what he is actually trying to argue, but it's not that genes don't exist.
I listened to this for a while waiting for him to make a coherent point, all i could tease out is this guy doesn't understand how genes work and is very confident he can win debates with some other group that thinks something strange? Not even wrong is probably the best assessment.
I disagree
[removed]
Strange moderation, it's really an ACP sub huh
Genes are fake af.
true
I pity this kind of people. What f... up sh... happened in their lives to make them be this petty excuse for a human being. These are lost people in need of love in their lives.
You should debate him.
marxism is not a psychological science, nor is it an individualised philosophy of self enlightenment. Marxism is not about individual behaviours, its emergent social structures, even if marxism was a psychological system marxists themselves wouldn't somehow be seperate autonomous entities from whatever pre-determined mechanistic forces he would claim drive human behaviour. Marxism already struggles enough predicting exact outcomes in society, let alone in individuals.
There are a billion variations of the red-pill going against the grain of society philosophies, but marxism is not one of them. This guy is just a self aggrandising prick. Taking vulgar marxism to its most extreme.
The weaponisation of historical specificity against biology in general adds nothing to his argument against genes as well. Just because we are in the information age and therefore out explanations of biological concept revolves around our understanding of information via computers and data does not make the model incorrect. Our counting system is based on 10 fingers. Does that mean we can't do maths? No. It's a total non-argument. If society is divided into marxists vs sheeple then this person would fit into the latter anyway, since he clearly does not understand the material or what points it actually argues.
What a loser.