Comments by "Dr. Ian Plect" (@Dr.IanPlect) on "These Creatures Were Darwin's Greatest Enemy" video.

  1. Don't forget the evolution part of his contribution, that's somewhat important!
    17
  2. Pathetic mud-slinging from the gallery; because understanding it is too much effort, or; I'm stubbornly against it on religious grounds.
    6
  3. Trolling oxygen thief.
    5
  4. "Darwin's greatest failing was thinking the environment shaped organisms" - No, such insight is remarkable and bang on! Environments heavily influence the path evolution takes, via natural selection, to say nothing of the internal environments within the organism itself. Here, epigenetics directly allows the environment to decide what traits and physical shape an organism may take! "Math is more powerful than the best ever genetic modification in an established population. Why? Take a population genetics course. Species only change much through bottleneck/island effect- arguably random" - simply wrong; common or garden evolution by ns is the most common process for allele change in populations. Foster's rule (island effect) and genetic bottlenecks are just subset conditions influencing the paths evolution may take! - Foster's rule (island effect) is where geographical constraints of the environment influence the traits of the populations subjected to it, primarily by physical size - genetic bottlenecks, rather than effecting much change as you claim, often have the opposite effect; a slowing of genetic diversity. This is due to a greatly reduced population numerical size which reduces the collective gene pool diversity upon which evolution can work! In some cases this lack of diversity can lead to extinction as low gene variation leaves populations vulnerable as the ability to adapt is significantly hampered "Survival of the "fittest" often boils down to those that weren't outright destroyed by some unusual occurrence and arouse by chance, not structure." - more nonsense. - survival of the fittest, in modern usage, refers to those with better reproductive success; producing more offspring. 'Unusual occurrences' are, by definition of the first word, unusual! So, 'outright destruction' by 'unusual occurences' isn't an 'often' event! - nor do populations arise, thrive and pass on genetic success by 'chance', that's where natural selection comes into play; the non-random, non-chance selective process acting upon populations. - and 'structure', as you state, but more generally and accurately, the phenotype is what arises from ns, not 'chance', as you claim ----------------- You've amply shown your ignorance, a lack of knowledge of evolution. For those reading his comment; I urge you to disregard it as flawed throughout.
    5
  5.  @relaxedzeal364  ""Understanding" is required when the subject is complex." - WRONG, 2+2=4 is simple, yet it requires understanding. The degree of understanding necessary increases with the complexity of the subject "Which clearly you believe it is." - yes, like all of science, evolution or biology in general, varies from quite easy to very difficult to understand, depending on the subject "I'm not religious, and this isn't science if it's not up for debate." - why even mention 'not up for debate'? I didn't even hint that! ALL science is up for debate "Scientists like to lock in their theories as solid and proven in order to feel like their life wasn't a waste." - refer to my previous comment. Also, what you just spewed out is what the religious do, not science. ------------- Note; this was your 2nd round of ineffective mudslinging. How about ACTUALLY discussing evolution, instead of blowing raspberries? We might get somewhere and you might learn something new, rather than this nonsense tactic. I'm very happy to converse with you...
    3
  6. "He did not see any evolutionary purpose to a tail that encumbered flight so badly." - very wrong indeed! - the tail was in Darwin's sexual selection theory, a body of work that directly explains its evolutionary purpose!
    3
  7. He was dedicated for sure.
    2
  8. Tripe, they are animals.
    2
  9.  @Mario87456  The ignoramus is muted.
    2
  10.  @ExtremeMadnessX  Have a guess who's wrong between Darwin and Troy.
    2
  11.  @spindoctor6385  My comment addressed your statement "He did not see any evolutionary purpose to a tail that encumbered flight so badly". Now, you may well have meant that in context of, and contemporary with his 'ill' comment. But my response clears up the matter by stating he later understood it very well.
    2
  12.  @spindoctor6385  I'm contented you now agree you were wrong with your blanket statement; "He did not see any evolutionary purpose to a tail that encumbered flight so badly" And that he did indeed account for the tail via sexual selection. ---------------
    2
  13. "Could the DNA convergent evolution allow them to cross breed?" I haven't watched the vid; - what convergent evolution? - allow what to cross breed?
    1
  14. tripe
    1
  15. What's your point?
    1
  16.  @2025izSh-t  "not really" - this clearly addresses the only point I made "Don't forget the evolution part of his contribution, that's somewhat important!" - so, substantiate your claim
    1
  17.  @2025izSh-t  well? Did you want to actually make a point?
    1
  18.  @OmnipotentSaiyan  useless
    1
  19. Forget one individual on a streaming platform helping him. Darwin was deficient in many ways that modern biology could tell him all about. The entirety of genetics being a massive example, as opposed to the miniscule topic of defining a discreet taxon.
    1
  20. No, no help at all.
    1
  21. Whilst high, maybe.
    1