I fully believe the biological details presented in the videos, sure, but there’s a certain clickbaitiness about them that leaves a bad taste. The one about ge

I fully believe the biological details presented in the videos, sure, but there’s a certain clickbaitiness about them that leaves a bad taste. The one about genetics seems to force conclusions that are palatable to modern sensibilities. How does Mendel accidentally fudging his results using eugenics prohibit “talk of good genes and bad genes”? There clearly are good and bad genes, this is obvious to anyone. It’s practically the whole point of the olympics to showcase people who have the best genetic prerequisites for their discipline. None of the technical minutiae of inheritance prevent us from breeding better sprinters. In fact we’ve done it with several animals. Whether or not any of this is ethical is not the field of biology’s concern. The video about cells has a similar problem, where it acts like it wants to invalidate higher levels of abstraction because reality is more complicated. Of course biology doesn’t operate like a designed and manufactured apparatus, but omitting complexities irrelevant to the question at hand is the entire point of making diagrams. Does the thing turn methane into methanol? Yes, it does. There is no problem here. These could be great educational videos if they weren’t strawmanning so hard. This is especially obvious in his carefully designed definition of a machine. Biology is just stupidly stochastic, but this stuff is akin to “nooooo, systems don’t »prefer« low energy states, they’re not conscious qq”. Like, okay, use a different verb if that makes you happy??