TikTok Compilation Vol. 21 | @RenegadeScienceTeacher
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2022
- Enjoy the Forrest's most popular TikToks without having to endure the lunacy of the app itself!
Subscribe at / renegadescienceteacher
Need more science in your life? Follow Forrest!
ValkaiLabs.com
TikTok - TikTok.com/@RenegadeScienceTeacher
Instagram - RenegadeScienceTeacher
Twitter - ProfForrest Facebook-
Don't miss Forrest's weekly podcast
"I'm Not Comfortable with This"
on UA-cam, Spotify, Breaker, Google Podcasts, Radio Public, and Pocketcasts!
Want to send Forrest something? Send your letters, artwork, science kits, or other surprises to
P.O. Box 1810
Broken Arrow, OK
74013
Want to help fund more shows like this?
Become a patron at Patreon.com/RenegadeScienceTeacher
or
Donate with Venmo - @ProfForrest
CashApp - $ProfForrest
PayPal.me/YourScienceTeacher
Have an awesome day and never stop learning!
That ending was so good , midday sun in the Sahara couldn't compare to the burn you gave that guy xD
This Forrest guy looks every inch what a description of a deviant looks like.
We need an other ice age for that burn
I honestly didn't get it. I understood it as a "You think an action is immoral and/or unnatural? Come with me I'm gonna perform that action and prove you wrong!" But performing something that someone else consider as sin doesn't prove that it is or isn't a sin.
@@outoSUMI the argument was that "it was unnatural" when it isn't
@@outoSUMI //"But performing something that someone else consider as sin doesn't prove that it is or isn't a sin"//
Perhaps possibly not to their personal mind, even though it still *Should or Ought to* in this case, but theirs isn't necessarily the mind that matters in the overall equation.
But it Does prove that for the individual performing the act, and anyone who understand the word "natural", and especially if they're someone who is moral. Forrest understands those things, and Forrest is a moral human being. Having non-procreative sex does literally nothing to change that; and that whole point was meant to be his way of saying "See?! I'll still be the *Exact Same* Moral Person after I do this Perfectly Natural Thing that you *Falsely Believe* to be unnatural, despite your disagreement."
As for defining it as "sin", which wasn't even mentioned in the original comment, that's just a bit silly imo (and indicative of religious bias). Regardless of what an individual person, or even regardless of what an entire group of Religions, chooses to *Attempt* to define as "immoral" (i.e. "sinful/non-procreative sex")... that neither necessarily nor automatically makes it so. Morality is far more complicated than the simplistic & binary blacks and whites that most religious ideologies [abrahamic ones especially] want to espouse and falsely allege pure objectivity for.
I love that you said "you do you" after validating asexual people :). I think is was "pun not intended" but I chuckled.
BUT do they do themself or don't they do?
@@Gildedmuse Well it was more meant as a joke, but I learned something.. so thank you.
Thought that was kinda "off limits" as well.
The best was "if you want to say sex is purely for procreation I'm gonna go find my fiance and prove you wrong "
"Sex exists for procreation" - This is true, until animals become intelligent enough to figure out it _feels awesome._
Because animals like things that feel good and are fun.
That's how nature works.
That's the same reason animals have favorite foods: they like it.
So sex _evolved_ for procreation, and then _pleasure_ evolved to encourage procreation, and then _intelligence_ facilitated non-procreative sex.
It also helps tighten social bonds in many species, most notably humans in many cases, but also in bonobos.
The best teachers are this enthusiastic about what they teach. They draw enthusiasm.
"the sky is now blue"
"The sun is a deadly lazer... not anymore, there's a blanket"
Yeah, I got that a few times during that part, too. XD
I am definately telling my students about the one billion year ice age on Monday, so glad there are other people who get so excited about science!
@lewis brown please never stop! I remember one teacher, for my entire school career, that loved science and her students. She did her best to be excited and interesting about everything she taught and I deeply regret not asking her more questions and picking her brain about the things she knew. We need more teachers and people like yourself who get excited over all this wonderful world allows us to get a peak at, study and figure out. I recently started looking into things I was curious about and wish I hadnt waited so long to utilize my online resources.
Rambling, sorry. But keep up the excitement in class and get em all hooked! This world is gonna need em more before we know it
@@aaronlong7482 Thank you, I don't teach science for praise or thanks. but itis nice when I do get it. This job is so much more than a paycheck for me, seeing that look of wonderment in a childs eyes, I imagine its how looked back in my school days in the late 2000s. To impasse that knowledge and fascination, priceless.
When Forrest will be an old man wanting to tell a tale, I want my grandkids to go hear him out 😂
Run through the Forrest with Valkai
Even if humans were the only species exibiting homosexuality it would still be natural. If it wasn't it would be SUPERnatural!
Very true but the internet does provide supernaturalsexuality.... (dear ghost. not my thing thank you very much. I'm sure it will be someone's just not me)
@@Neppy22 Yeah... I've actually heard of people who are into that, whether they actually believe in ghosts or it's just a fantasy.
Unnatural would be the word
@@agimasoschandir If it exists its natural. Though, that would mean that if supernatural things existed they would be natural too... So.. Eh.
@@peronkop 😊 Hiya, Mind if I give this a go?;_
*Natural;* If it exists _in our universe_ its natural (ie. part of our universe's nature).
*Supernatural;* If it's unable to _AND/OR_ does not exist in our universe, its supernatural.
_If_ we ever find an 'Outer realm' / 'spirit realm' / Valhalla / Heaven; (ie. a realm outside our universe) governed by a separate set of natural laws, I would consider it _Supernatural_ to our own universe.
Though, a portal to the Outer Realms *_would_* be natural, _how else_ could it exist?
And what Exact point would count as being outside our universe?
If that supernatural point is connected to our portal it would paradoxically mean it existed and thus be ..natural.. too.. So.. Eh. 😮💨
the absolute chaotic energy of that ending holy shit
i watched the video in picture-in-picture mode on firefox, which handles the end of a video by just stopping on the last frame, and so now i've just got this image of forrest's "we'll bang, ok?" grin floating on my screen, and it's just a powerful image
That ending comment really got me. How the hfil is something that occurs in nature unnatural? The whole concept of "purpose" is less natural than that. The irony is just painful.
Purpose is entirely unnatural. Nothing in nature has a purpose, it just is. 👍
@@lunasborednow Indeed, things may have a function, but not a purpose. That part, humans made up completely.
Okay, I got completely distracted by your comment. You mention HFIL and now all I can think about is DragonBall Z Abridged. So, thank you for that lol
Honestly, a person who is passionate about their work and study can be an absolute hoot. Love your work, Forrest 🙂
‘The old earth rusts’ is such a metal phrase.
Earth used to be a lot more heavy minerals and metal laying around because the idea of "dirt" as we understand it only exists because of the effects plans and animals have on geology!
"life gets real weird real fast," is the best succinct explanation of the Cambrian explosion I've ever heard. 🤣
I absolutely love the enthusiasm and passion to match the knowledge.
Okay, so fun fact about that goat rubbing up on you, the goat, while doing an action that we've perceived as friendly based on our ages of pet ownership, it's actually rubbing the area on its head that the horns will be sprouting from against you like it would against a post, tree or any hard stationary object because the nerves beneath give a sensation of itching in order for the goat to rub the area against something, thus causing callouses so that it's less painful as the horns begin to push out of the skin! How cool is that??
I was actually thinking while watching that bit that the goat looked more like it was frustrated by an itch!
Absolutely love these compilations!
Hell, bonobo's use sex as "hello"
Also to de-escalate potentially violent situations, IIRC.
Bonobos use sex as the basis of their entire social dynamics. Sex is their entire group theory.
Glad you're so exited to talk about phytoplankton.
I've never felt more threatened than that last sentence as he stood up
I like the animalcules. Why didn’t we just stick with that? What was the reason for changing it to bacteria?
the science man said sex was good someone get him an awards for being a real one
The ending is just perfect!
His excitement over the oxygen catastrophe 😂
Did that friendly goat lose its horns recently and now the "buds" are itching??? Like toothing just with your skulltop? :D
"I know it, I know it" every oklahoma man talking to a child or animal who's feeling -large emotion- lmao
Animolecules? That's adorable!
Hard flex at the end there
The only thing I would change about this is to undo the horizontal flip.
One thing I learned from this. Oxygen is apparently suffering from codependency.
0:15 "Did you know that we discovered the outer planets before we discovered bacteria?" Jupiter and Saturn are naked-eye planets, and have been known since prehistoric times, so we don't usually talk about them being "discovered". Uranus was discovered in 1781 and Neptune in 1846, both well after van Leeuwenhoek's discovery of animalcules.
"In 1610, Galileo built a telescope, and looked up in the sky, and saw Saturn and Jupiter." Yes, but he didn't 'discover' them. He did discover the 4 largest moons of Jupiter, now called the 'Galilean moons' in his honor.
Weren't they thought to be stars prior to the telescope, though...?
@@SomeOnlinePerson: 70 years before Galileo's telescope, Copernicus wrote that "the followers of Plato suppose that all the planets -- which are otherwise dark bodies -- shine with light received from the sun", which would make them fairly distinct from stars. (Given his model, I think Copernicus himself must have had a similar opinion, but I haven't found him saying so.)
So the idea that planets *weren't* stars was around prior to Galileo, but I don't know how widespread it was.
You could be the new Beakman. Go call Paul Zaloom and do a collab. Then, call PBS and tell them to give you a show. They'll do it. Thank you for all you do!
The same people who say that sex is only for procreation also tend to believe that marriage is only for Christians... while quoting Genesis 😆
Oh damn! He murder them in the last 3 second...
Your voice turned into Greg Fluhrer from Armoured Skeptic during the goat thing
I'm glad your back to putting these videos out!
My partner's philosophy on life is "We're just stupid monkeys that want to sit around and play with our buttholes", and it's hard to argue with that idea when you look at the entirety of human history and behavior
The goat is great
"Honey, come here a sec... I need to prove some people wrong...."
Don't Bonobo's also use sex as a way to resolve conflict?
3:00 having this play in the background with out seeing what was happening was kinda ... weird :D
I feel so warm and happy after he called out asexuals specifically. So many people still don't realize that asexuality is a thing, or insist that we'll "understand one day"
Also, unrelated, but have the people making this argument that animals don't have sex just for pleasure never raised a puppy through adolescence into adulthood?
The most excitable scientist I've ever seen! And one of the most likeable!
The first mass extinction is such a cool event (as an epic tale of early Earth, of course), but I think my favorite extinction is the Great Dying. It's just that there are so many intertwined systems affecting each other like dominos and changing everything. Just with one extinction event, you can learn things about geology (the magma provinces that triggered it), marine currents (how heat disrupted them), chemistry/biology (still waters leading to lack of dissolution of oxygen in water killing aerobic organisms, and their decomposition producing toxic gases), ice ages/global warming, the rise of a new type of animals (I believe it's the start of dinosaurs' diversification?)...
One of the extinct species of sharks of the time left fossils of spiraling sets of teeth. This is so otherworldly!
_Proving someone wrong on the internet_ (9:33) - another good reason for having sex.
I was just as excited about the mass extinction of oxygen, and damn your enthusiasm is infectious.
It's just so cool to know that oxygen was toxic once upon a time, and the only reason life survived it ravaging the planet was by evolving to use its reactivity in our biochemistry. Billions of years later, and virtually all life is dependent upon the constant presence of oxygen.
It puts so many things into perspective. Nothing on Earth is static, or happens in a vacuum, and life is unbelievably resilient. If we all nuked each other tomorrow and mankind vanished, you can bet in a few million years we'd have a slew of creatures that tolerated or thrived in the presence of gamma radiation.
This is the exact opposite to the 'fine tuning' argument I'm sure we have all heard numerous times - the earth must have been created with us in mind because its characteristics suit us so well, if if were any hotter or any colder or rotated at a different speed etc etc we would not exist. It's a rubbish argument - all it shows is that we evolved because of the environment. If the earth were different then sure, humans would not exist, but other life forms would have evolved which were better suited to that different environment.
And tardegrades would likely be among them.
There is a slim mold in Chernobyl that uses a modified form of melanin to preform radiosynthesis- photosynthesis with gamarays
@@lunasborednow source? That's so cool I want to read more about it ...
You can still get yourself oxygen poisoning by just breathing deeply for a long time. Plus, it's still ravaging the planet - have you seen forest fires?
Have you ever seen any speculative biology projects, Serina is a good one. I'd like to see your opinion on these cool projects
They had lions in Europe during Roman times.
There are still about 500 Asian lions left in India, Gujarat I think
Man, you are one of my favorite science channel!
I think you meant "celibate" instead of "asexual". Plenty of aces also like engaging in those activities for various reasons.
Still appreciate the support though!
Isn't asexual also an umbrella term? I know that demisexual is often placed under the ace umbrella
@@FeeshUnofficial It is! And yes, there are quite a few identities that are under it, including demisexual. Graysexual is another common one
Lmao at the ending
Love your stuff my dude. And I love how showcasing basic and advanced biology really breaks out simplistic human conceptions on what we think reality is. :D
Thank you. Love seeing an enthusiastic young scientist.
I love seeing that last comments about how other animals reproduce for pleasure and master nation and things like that it shows that despite religious teachings that that kindof thing is actually very normal
Nice.
Lmao that goat. I have one of those, not too bright but fun as fuck
Glad to see a new video from you. Love your content
More vids from Forrest!
In the last bit it would be funnier if he said 'your mother' insted of fiance
He's so excited. He's gonna go find his fiancé and prove you wrong.
Sex rocks man, who wouldn't be excited?
Thanks, you getting excited makes these fun. Love learning, excited about learning is a great thing. I too get that way but don't know many who want to listen to me.
I find it rather cool, and odd that we talk about the % of O2 in bio history, when it really is a very small % of what we breathe. Strange that such a small percent of anything could have such a huge impact. Awesome explanation of this. :)
What did the sky look like before it was blue
I AM going to search a bit more the giraffe fact and start telling it. LMAO.
"Hey, Giraffes are an invasive species in Africa" XD
Wow that ending ❤️ knocked it out of the park lol
Can I just compliment you on how you said Leeuwenhoek? You nailed it
Such enthusiasm for learning is infectious. Thank you Forrest.
The only part of this video that makes me upset is that the term Animolecules didn't fucking stick through history dammit!
Forrest is so cute when he gets exited about science :>
This is an absolutely fantastic set of videos but, unfortunately, I have to fundamentally disagree with something you say right at the end.
...
Whilst it's true that *in Latin* "data" is plural, with "datum" being the singular, in modern English it is an uncountable/mass noun so it is not right to say "the data just aren't on your side" but rather "the data just isn't on your side". But that's just my grammatical agenda, which isn't on your side. Your grammatical agendum might be on your side, but I doubt it.
Who
Man, the grammar nazis went to college. We're doomed.
I foolishly assumed that by posting my reply in the way that I did it would be obviously meant in jest, with the humour derived from my comment appearing to be arguing against something of substance before being expanded to find it was just a grammar joke. But if you want to call me names over it I guess I did invite it - I'd rather you didn't but what can I do, eh?
@@phyphor No more. Please i have a family. 😭
I'm sorry! I can't help being erudite; verbose; wordy, even! If it helps, I hate me, too.
If animal migration to another habitat in any context still considered "invasive" wouldn't that make all species invasive? Because the earth itself did not have its current habitats when animals first evolved. What makes giraffes invasive today? They may very well have been when they first arrived in Africa, but is it fair to condemn them as such today? They're a valuable part of their ecosystem. The animals around them have adapted to their presence. This is not equivalent to the Australian cane toad. In my very limited education in biology, i was told that all species are foreign to their environment to some extent, and that those which fit well into their environment are called "naturalized", those who were introduced but cause no apparent disruptive impact to the ecosystem are "alien" and those who are disruptive are "invasive". I might have been wrong, and I genuinely would love a response clarifying this point.
God I miss my goats.
Animolecules? Why did we ever rename them to microorganisms? Animolecules sound soo much cooler!
probably because it's a more direct self-explanatory name though animolecules sounds like some scifi thing to explain transformation between human and other animals or something
Animalcules*
I’m pretty sure it’s actually animalcules and Forest inserted an extra syllable
Only a GOAT finished like that
Interesting thing about "animalcule": van Leeuwenhoek never used this science-y word. He usually used *dierken*, which was literally "little animal" and deliberately chosen for ease of comprehension--no one had ever seen microscopic life before and he was trying to get across that these seemed to be living, moving little animals.
The animalcule culprit was Henry Oldenburg, the secretary of the Royal Society, who chose to translate van Leeuwenhoek's dierken as animalcule. The common speculation I've seen for this decision was to make van Leeuwenhoek's work seem more momentous, which is a little weird considering it didn't really need the help of an inkhorn word.
2:34 The wide distribution of lions is part of one of my favourite ‘out there’ theories out there, started (and mainly proponed, afaik) by a Georgian musicologist, Joseph Jordania.
From an elaborate theory about the origins of polyphony, went on to positing that hominins had (co)evolved as they did as an *aposematic* defence against lions.
Don't know what you'd make of this, if you ever read this, Forrest.
Love your work!
I thought the main cause of extinction during the Great Oxygen Catastrophe was, y'know, the oxygen? Most life back then was anaerobic, oxygen actually being toxic to them, so when the atmosphere started filling up with the stuff, all those species eventually went extinct.
Did the ice ages actually play a more important role there? Life around that time was still all in the oceans, especially near deep-sea vents, so I didn't think it'd be that important.
I imagine that would be a part of it. A great deal of oxygen being introduced to a system that actively does NOT like it being there would definitely be disruptive in a lot of ways. Inability to breathe, toxic environment, total planet cooling resulting in the assumedly comfortable temperatures these creatures were used to dropping dramatically and probably to a deadly degree. You're right, creatures that lived near sources of great heat likely would not have felt much of an effect, but that is one very specific context for survival. Life everywhere else would be having a very bad time.
I think that if we had enormous quantities of carbon dioxide poured into our atmosphere WITHOUT the countermeasures like plants that we have now, we would see the very same happen today. Our atmosphere would be inundated with an unbreathable substance and our planet would heat to an unbearable degree. Sure, we have tools as intelligent beings, which help us ward off the dangers that would otherwise kill something else, but the world around us will die except in the extremes.
of course, the last bit is speculation from a layman, but it seems like that would be the case.
I suppose it'd depend on the speed. If it was a slow enough process, there could be some evolving an increasing oxygen tolerance (that would probably set the foundation for oxygen-breathing animals), but they'd all still be used to the heat, and it might be harder to find a warm-enough place during an ice age than to find a place with at least less free oxygen during the build-up. I know that anaerobic bacteria can gather and even become a problem in aquariums (especially in the substrate at the bottom), and a lot of them can actually be found in mud and even just soil. And it's sort of interesting that he mentioned that "the whole Earth was rusting," because apparently the bacteria that causes tetanus is anaerobic.
So while the oxygen itself surely killed plenty, it's possible that the cold was a bigger blow. It's also possible that he intended to present the whole thing as the murder weapon and ended up minimizing the direct impact of the oxygen and maximizing the direct impact of the cold sorta by accident.
Yeah oxygen is actually super toxic, the only reason some organisms tolerate it is because we have specific enzimes to deal with it. But using oxygen is also very much worth it, because it's one of the best things to breathe energy wise
Or, that we know more about the earliest galaxies, (beautiful pics, by the way) yet we don't know about most of the oceans' bottom.
You’re back! 🤩
I like your channel so much. I like you so much. Thanks for being part of all the thousands of different things that make the world a wee bit better. 😊
You make learning sooo exiting!
I love it!
^(^ ^)^
Thanks for these brilliant fun facts
Lots of animals have sex for fun. Like dolphins🐬
"He...is flurpin him...IN THE HEAD"
-Ricky Gervais
@UCiBgpPUATSXZaM6RGn-8YLA "lots" is a bit vague and subjective I'll admit. I mean there's like 800 species of just tarantulas so even if we can say list a hundred or so animals where we observe recreational sex, that's still nothing if we're going to factor in literally all animals. Fish and coral polyps and termites and tarantulas included.
But, if we specify we're talking about mostly mammals that form social groups, it's actually not so exceptional. Dolphins and primates, but you can also add meerkats, giraffes, rats and mice, dogs, and elephants to an off the cuff list of animals that do it too. Its part of how they(and we) evolved to form strong bonds so they stick together and protect each other.
Whether we should employ everything that's naturally occurring in the animal kingdom in our daily lives as humans, that's a whole other conversation lol. Sorry im rambling😂
The dude caused the 7th mass extinction on that last video.
Another one from Forrest!
Come on now, Galileo didn't *discover* Saturn and Jupiter, those were known since ancient times. Uranus was only discovered in 1781, but that was after the bacteria date you mentioned.
It seems petty to diminish the work of Galileo by failing to categorize his accomplishments as works of 'discovery'.
Certainly, Saturn and Jupiter were among many celestial bodies that were observable with the naked eye, as recorded since ancient times. But is it not a 'discovery' to see it clearly magnified for the first time, to the point that we now had new knowledge about surface characteristics and satellites orbiting these planets.
How would we classify the acquisition of this new knowledge if not discovered?
Who discovered, for example, the giant turtle (random example)? The first person to see one? The first person to document seeing one? The first person to study them and document their behaviors and life cycles? The first person to dissect and document their internal structures?
I would argue the answer is all of the above to some extent, and each one could reasonably be described discoverers, collectively or individually. After all, we all stand on the shoulders of giants - nobody ever discovered anything without knowledge discovered by someone else.
@@icycooldrink6085 I disagree with you there: to discover something means to first become aware of its existence at all: so Galileo didn't discover that Jupiter and Saturn EXIST, though he did discover other things about them, which is the actual important part there. Compare this to the fact we didn't even know Uranus and Neptune existed at all until much later (tho apparently there were some observations about Uranus as a star or comet before then, so that one is debatable).
I will also add that 'd0iscover' is something that can be limited to a group of people: some people say "well Columbus didn't discover America, there were already people there!", which is true, but also entirely missing the point that he discovered the continent *for Europe,* who did not, in fact, know about it. The same is true for giant turtles or any other 'exotic' species: people living in those areas of the world may have known about them since ancient times, but for a European naturalist, it was still a 'discovery' from their perspective.
@@Marconius6 The overall point (hence the bit about the firsts of giant turtles) was that discovery is not just about the 'first' of something, and that 'firsts' can be subdivided almost infinitely to make them a 'first by caveat'.
There is also the issue of attribution. Did Columbus actually see land first? Was there someone up in the crow's nest or at the bow who saw land and then alerted everyone else? Does that not make this person the discoverer? But it was Columbus's expedition, right? Another caveat.
Nonetheless, people DO say that Columbus discovered the Americas. Despite the caveat, this is true. I believe that Galileo is likewise sometimes attributed for the discovery simply because he discovered new information about these celestial bodies which lead to a fundamental shift in how the world understood our relationship with the universe. If you insist on a caveat, then how about for University of Padua?
But, my overall response was more to indicate that this level of pedantry is not really justified in this case. If you watch the video back Forrest doesn't even make the claim that Galileo discovered Saturn and Jupiter. He said:
- ... we discovered the outer planets before we discovered bacteria
- In 1610, Galileo built a telescope and ... saw Saturn and Jupiter'
- It wasn't until 1676 that Leeuwenhoek ... saw the very first evidence of microorganisms
Three statements, all of them true, none of them making the claim that Galileo discovered Saturn or Jupiter. That he saw it through a telescope does not imply it had never been seen before. I think it Galileo was cited simply because the act of viewing these planets through a telescope at that point in time is so well documented. And read my post again. I too made no attribution of discovery to Galileo beyond the additional knowledge which he did, in fact, discover.
So if you want to quibble over what 'discovery' is, that's fine I guess. But at least acknowledge that your original post is taking exception at something which was not actually claimed in this clip.
@@icycooldrink6085 That's clearly bullshit. He said "We discovered the outer planets [...]" and then immediately followed that with "In 1610, Galileo..." The implication here is obviously that the 1610 event WAS the discovery mentioned in the previous sentence. Come on now.
@@Marconius6 Well, we clearly disagree then.
I don't believe there is any intent to imply Galileo 'discovered' Saturn and Jupiter. He says 'we' knew about it, and then cites the year that Galileo saw same through a telescope. I maintain that it is simply a well documented reference point of 'knowing about' these objects before we knew about bacteria. This, and the fact there is a pleasing symmetry between these events given they are both scientific and both feature the scientific use of lensing.
He's doing a monologue to camera, citing a series of facts that show a progression up to our current understanding. I find it incredibly unreasonable and unrealistic to demand that each and every point be qualified and caveats noted in an unscripted video aimed at social media. If for no other reason than it would make the content at least twice as long and infinitely more complicated.
You are taking exception at an implication, rather than at something that was said, and now you've been called on it and want to wave it away as 'bullshit'. I get it. But you wanted to be pedantic about what was said, and if we're going to put it under a microscope (more symmetry there), then we need to examine what was actually said.
At no point was the claim made that Galileo discovered Saturn and Jupiter, though in 1610 Galileo did in fact make well documented discoveries regarding these planets.
I could claim Forrest implied that Leeuwenhoek drinks only pond water because he mentions the name, pond water and teeth in the same sentence. Me making that claim in no way demonstrates that an implication was intended or exists.
We need episode 60 of I'm not comfortable with this 😭
I mean sex is technically just for procreation BUT that doesn't mean it can't be used for pleasure, the intention doesn't demand the use. Ears are for listening but they can hold up glasses too, yes they are not intended for holding glasses on your head but they can be used for that, a mattress is for sleeping on but it's also pretty useful for having sex on even though it's not technically made to have sex on.
Saying sex is "intended" for pleasure implies that nature has "intentions" about or for anything. It doesn't. If it doesn't kill you, and doesn't conflict with your morality, go for it.
We had vaccines 50 years before doctors washing their hands before medical procedures was a thing.
It's always neat to hear your casual inclusion of various groups of people (and also of lots of other things, but for different reasons), especially in spots where most might consider it unnecessary if they even think of it. So like at the end there, you're fired up (as you do) about the silliness of puritanical ideas around sex and how it's multi-functional and whatnot, and then you just casually add a few extra words to acknowledge and validate asexual folks and distinguish them from people who just have a problem with sex. Sure, there are plenty of aces who are also bothered by sex in some way (sometimes for very good reasons, sadly), but there are also plenty of aces who find it fascinating at least as a concept, who have a particularly "dirty" sense of humor, and even aces who are not only willing to engage in partnered sex (without being pressured, because that's not real consent anymore), but also some who will still seek it because all the nerves and stuff usually still work just fine and they still think it's fun (they just... don't experience the sexual attraction aspect of it and have to base their choice of partner off of *all the other things* can make a fellow human seem like a good potential partner).
Unrelated, are you sure that goat didn't just have an itch or something? I have as little experience with goats as is possible without it being fully "none," and have no idea if that's just a regular part of that one's personality (some of your comments made it sound like it was, some made it seem like it was doing something maybe pushing a bit out of character). I just know that to me, that looked like a frustrated effort to get just the right spot to relieve an itch.
At 00:18, Forrest what are you saying about Jupiter and Saturn? In the context of your sentence, it sound as if Galileo discovered Jupiter and Saturn, the way that Uranus discovery was attributed to Sir William Herschel? Jupiter and Saturn were observed and named since antiquity, possibly since prehistoric time.
Galileo made observations about Jupiter moons and Saturn “ears”, i.e. the rings, but the planets were already known.
A question: Why the oxygen levels varied so much in the past. Now a little over 20%, and in a past time up to levels of around 30%+. Why the fluctuation? Your doing a great job.
He did say it already: animals evolved and consumed it, the earth rusted (literally), rocks weathered, etc. etc. etc. ...
@@brag0001 In the age of huge insects and bugs, millions of years AFTER the free iron in the seas was oxidized, before the evolution of mammals oxygen levels reached around 30%, stayed at that level for a considerable time, and then dropped to around 20%. Why I ask. Their should be a reason and I do not know why.
@@haydnwilde oh, I didn't know your question was that specific. I can't help you with that ...
@@brag0001 that's okay. What would cause the oxygen levels to rise to high levels and then reduce, and can this action repeat? Could oxygen levels rise again, or even reduce further. The state of this planet and life itself is a very fluid thing.
@@haydnwilde "it's okay that you can't answer the question" *proceeds to ask the question again*
I used to work in a laboratory breeding station, many different animals. And yes various different types of sex was observed
Well that was a quick upload
I love u Forrest 😍
Making my day better again huh?
i miss reacteria 😁
he still does it.
I liked this video when i clicked it, watched it, i agree with my assesment.
1:53 So modern giraffes and okapes are a product of biotic interchange basicly.
What the hell is this dove releasing thing?