3
0

What do you "Think" you know about science?


 invite response                
2020 Dec 7, 2:07pm   5,121 views  94 comments

by GlocknLoad   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Guest Post by Simon Black



If there were a Mount Rushmore to memorialize the greatest scientists in US history, Richard Feynman’s face would almost certainly be on the monument.

He was only 24 years of age when he was recruited into a secret research group that eventually became part of the Manhattan Project, joining some of the other most prominent scientists of his age, like Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi.

Feynman went on to make unparalleled advances in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics. He conceived of nanotechnology as early as the 1950s, and quantum computing as early as 1982.

Feynman also won the Nobel Prize, plus countless other awards and medals; and he was ranked by leading scientists as one of the greatest physicists of all time– alongside Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Galileo.


In short, Feynman knew what he was talking about when it came to science.

One thing that was really interesting about Feynman is that, despite all of his success and credentials, he was the first to admit that nothing was truly certain and absolute, even in science:

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.

According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”

Or, as Isaac Asimov put it, “Science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves.”

Yet now we’re being force fed a narrative that science is absolute and 100% certain… and that, above all else, we must listen to the scientists.

Or, more precisely, we must listen to the scientists they want us to listen to.

We must listen to the scientists, for example, who tell us that 2+2 = white supremacy.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that biology no longer determines sex.

And we absolutely must listen to the scientists who tell us to cower in fear in our homes because of a virus.

We must listen to the scientists who say that unmasked BLM protestors packed together like sardines are not a danger to spreading the virus because of the righteousness of their cause.

We must listen to the scientists at the WHO that told us in late March to NOT wear masks, and then, oops, just kidding, please do wear masks.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that we need to keep our masks on, and then take their own masks off as soon as they’re no longer on camera.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us to cancel everything and not spend time with friends and family, who then themselves hop on a plane to visit their own friends and family.

We must listen to the scientists who agree that cannabis dispensaries, acupuncture clinics, and casinos are “essential businesses”, but masked worshipers six feet apart in churches and synagogues must be forced to stay home under threat of imprisonment.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that the national debt doesn’t matter, and the government can simply print as much money as it wants and give out free money to everyone without any consequences ever.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that standing on wet sand is safe, but standing on dry sand will spread the Coronavirus.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us we need to do whatever it takes to prevent a single Covid death… but that deaths due to suicide, heart attack, and stroke are perfectly fine, and so are domestic violence, drug addiction, and depression.

And we must listen to the scientists who tell us that an unproven vaccine devoid of any long-term study is completely safe and effective.

Yes. Those are the scientists we must listen to.

But we absolutely must NOT listen to any scientists who voice concerns about Covid vaccines.

We must not listen to scientists whose peer-reviewed research shows that Covid might not be as bad or as deadly as the media continues to portray.

We must not listen to scientists, including a Fulbright scholar / MIT PhD in data science, whose research shows bizarre, highly suspicious statistical anomalies regarding the 2020 election.

No. We definitely must NOT listen to those scientists.

And thank goodness that Big Media and Big Tech make it so easy for us to not listen to those scientists.

Twitter and Facebook have conveniently censored posts, prevented sharing, and even suspended the accounts of dangerous scientists who present new ideas.

And the big media companies simply refuse to report on those stories altogether. How thoughtful of them to pre-determine for us what we should see and what we should believe!

It’s clear the people who control the flow of information– Big Media and Big Tech– are deliberately shaping the story they want us to believe.

Forget Feynman. Their science is certainty. Their science is unassailably, 100%, absolutely true…

Anyone who dares question the certainty and sanctity of their science is ridiculed. The media calls any blasphemy a ‘hoax’ and chastises your ‘baseless assertions’.

And Twitter subjects you to the “Two Minutes Hate” ritual from Orwell’s 1984 (along with the hateful cancel culture rituals from Orwell’s lesser known work, 2021).

At this point I just want to know what these people are so afraid of– why are they so terrified of anyone asking questions?

Because when you’re not allowed to question something, it’s no longer science. It’s just authoritarian propaganda.

« First        Comments 36 - 75 of 94       Last »     Search these comments

36   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 9, 6:01am  

just_passing_through says
Not this shit again. Begone with you demon!

Sweet, real sweet. Love you too brother.


“There are more potential DNA bases than those in living things on planet earth, and the Creator theoretically might have taken another course to program life on this planet.”

Fixed it for you.

“It's like life from another planet.”

Ah no, it’s like when a kid with Tinker toys and legos puts them together to create an abomination. And even if the creation could somehow replicate itself, it’s offspring would still have the same building blocks as the original creation. That is because they have a common creator. The base pairs we see in all plants, animals and bacteria are part of the creation and evidence of a common Creator.
37   HeadSet   2020 Dec 9, 6:54am  

just_passing_through says
HeadSet says
Or are referring to gene splicing of already living matter?


Well sort of, but sort of not. These aren't your typical gene-splicing genetic engineering experiments. Yeah, the 'shell was alive' but after you pull all of the chromosomes out of it nope. These are way more than a somatic cell nuclear transfer which does replace chroms.


What you are referring to then sounds like a variation on cloning, where the nucleus is removed from the egg cell and new DNA is inserted. And by the way, the "shell" is not dead because you removed the original DNA/nucleus, it is still living protoplasm. Not to deride the advancement of a new style DNA, but it is not the same as creating life from non-living materials. As far as that cake from scratch analogy, yes no one expects "from scratch" to mean you grew your own wheat and squeezes the cow teat yourself. It also does not mean your merely added goat's milk instead of cow's milk to the Duncan Hines mix.
38   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 9, 6:47pm  

HeadSet says
What you are referring to then sounds like a variation on cloning


It sort of is, you're right, I'd set a trap to see if anyone actually read the effin articles. If they had they would have been able to rip me to shreds. It's been a few days so I'll fess up because nobody caught that. (one states clearly this isn't from scratch)

It was just interesting to me to see if anyone would actually read.

On the other hand, these are different in a way. Generally when we clone (I've done a lot) you still wind up with the same organism. Both of these that's not the case. Think of it this way:

If you install a new OS in your computer the hardware doesn't change physically. In these cases the software forces a break down of all of the components and a rebuild of the hardware.
40   Rin   2020 Dec 9, 7:03pm  

just_passing_through says
Why are you on a science thread at all? Are you doing God's work? Yeah, I bet you think that's it. How old is the earth, seven thousand years, ten thousand years? Did Jesus ride on a dino?


No, the T-Rex, Velociraptor, Abominable Snowman, and Big Foot all rode on Noah's Ark.

Afterwards, they went extinct (except for Big Foot) and thus, Jesus was stuck, riding a camel or a horse, if he had the money.
42   richwicks   2020 Dec 9, 7:11pm  

PeopleUnited says
The base pairs we see in all plants, animals and bacteria are part of the creation and evidence of a common Creator.


It's evidence of a common ancestor.

You know what happens if you put two animals in the same environment that fit the same ecological niche? One exterminates the other.

So, if two (or dozens) of life forms were started and created entirely independently, with completely different structures, it's quite likely one would wipe out the other in time, and this has been apparently been going on for more than a billion years.

Consider Australia where there are plenty of marsupials, they have many examples of indepent convergent evolution. This is when in a geologically isolated area, the fauna (and probably flora) produce animals that look VERY similar to animals found in a completely different geological area but they look very much the same.

The Tasmanian devil was a wolf analog. The bilby is a rabbit.
43   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 9, 7:21pm  

richwicks says
it's quite likely one would wipe out the other in time, and this has been apparently been going on for more than a billion years.


Yeah, there are theories that this is still happening all of the time. New forms of life trying to spontaneously arise. It just gets eaten. No proof whatsoever so far, just conjecture. If we were tiny perhaps we'd notice.
44   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 9, 8:29pm  

Many scientists past and present believe in Bible accounts as historically accurate including the flood (for which we have no shortage of evidence= billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth)

It takes a mountain of faith to believe that rocks + water + energy + time = origin of species.

It takes no faith at all to observe that the order and complexity of life, ecosystems and the human eye did NOT happen by chance, but rather must have been planned and designed.

“Those who depend on evolution to be their god defy the basic building principals of our world. When you build anything that has order and structure (which our world clearly has), you start with the finished design in mind. In other words, you must build towards something. Evolution defies this basic building law and states what we have is the result of millions of years of life building on itself not really knowing where it was leading to. Life didn’t know what it was building towards, it was just constantly building and evolving over millions of years and now what we see is the result of that constant building. To look at the complexity of a human body and conclude that there was no predetermine design in mind as this structure was build is very illogical.

In short, the intricacy of creation and the mathematical unlikelihood of the ingredients accidentally falling into place to form what exists is beyond logic and all forms of healthy hope. Those who deny the existence of God have no answer for why the universe is so highly tuned, detailed, and ordered. A designed world demands the existence of a Designer.“

https://applygodsword.com/apologetics-arguments-4-arguments-anyone-can-use-for-the-existence-of-god/
45   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 9, 8:41pm  

richwicks says
It's evidence of a common ancestor.


Precisely. All dogs from chihuahua to Great Dane have a common ancestor.

The Tasmanian devil may fill a similar niche to a wolf, but it will never be a wolf. It will always be a marsupial. That is what I mean when I say I don’t believe in evolution. I don’t believe a bacterium can become a mouse over time. A bacteria will always evolve into another bacteria. A dog will always evolve into another type of dog, and a human will always evolve into another type of human. Adapting to the environment is obvious, but changing from a bacteria into a complex multicellular organism has never been observed and is quite frankly a mathematical impossibility. It takes a lot of faith, or a lot of willful ignorance to believe that mythology.

Furthermore the fact that a wolf and a marsupial can fill the same role in an ecosystem is an elegant example of the grand design of the Creator, to allow His creation to adapt to changing environments and maintain a similar order, food chain and structural biodiversity even when the number of different kinds/taxonomic families who were able to migrate to a region like Australia is much more limited in comparison to other areas such as North America.
46   richwicks   2020 Dec 9, 9:34pm  

PeopleUnited says
The Tasmanian devil may fill a similar niche to a wolf, but it will never be a wolf. It will always be a marsupial. That is what I mean when I say I don’t believe in evolution. I don’t believe a bacterium can become a mouse over time. A bacteria will always evolve into another bacteria.


Do you think that over time:

1) a bacteria could form a colony for the overall bacterial colony's benefit?
2) that the successive descendants of such a colony may produce Interdependencies where no one bacteria can live on its own?
3) that the bacteria of the colony will undergo specialization to better protect the colony?
4) that the bacterial colony will lose and gain function, again for the OVERALL survival of the colony?
5) that bacterial colonies will compete for resources, and kill other colonies to be able to reproduce?

I'm sure you've seen apiaries where bees specialize in function for the protection of the colony. What you are actually seeing in a bee colony is a single, distributed organism. That's what is so fascinating about them. A worker bee does many things, but it will die to protect the colony. Just like a white blood cell would in me.

What a complex animal may be, is just a hive of connected cells. Every cell in my body, by this time, has been replaced since my birth, but I still retain the knowledge and memory of the child I once was, although nearly every atom in my body has been replaced since that time. I still retain, fuzzy, memories of the person I once was, who is now dead.

And it's not that an ape will turn into a human, even in successive generations, it's that it may become sentient over successive generations, or sentient in what we think as sentience and may oneday enter the same biological niche we exist in. We are a part of nature. A dog may as well, or a bear, or anything. Intelligence comes at a cost, but the cost may allow it to out compete others in their species, or to allow them to dominate other species.

We do not know at all where sexual reproduction began or how it did. There's a ton of hypotheses on it, but we ultimately don't know. Imagining asexual reproduction to make a more complex animal starting from a single bacteria -> colony isn't difficult though.

There's a lot we don't know and much that is speculation. Nobody that works with evolutionary theory worries about the origin of life, we know it happened, we can speculate, but we cannot reproduce it - as of yet, maybe we never will but there has been some interesting experiments in where amino acids were created from inorganic material. The Miller-Urey experiment for example, and get this - although it produced what we think is the fundamentals of "life", the assumptions made for the early earth, were entirely wrong. Still, it produced amino acids.

www.youtube.com/embed/gWqJfBEzU98

I do not want to attack your religious belief or strip you of your faith - and I would have 15 years ago. I'm explaining the basis of my conclusion.

The concept and process of evolution is made use of all the time in engineering today. The very fact that it's EXTREMELY useful strongly indicates that an idea that predates evolutionary algorithms has a strong basis to believed to be correct for the origin of organic life.

As a human being, I believe, you are merely the process of a unimaginable line of an evolutionary algorithm. All life has a common ancestor I think, that is not to say that we evolved from apes, but some proto animal group split off from another group, and one group had descendants that ultimately became apes, and the other group, human beings but it's dubious that this ancestor would be something you'd recognize as an ape or a human.

I was a vegetarian for a long time because I did see life as all similar. You can pity me, because what ultimately changed me back, was I started looking on life as pointless and not worth preserving for as long as possible. Seen too much death.

In any case, I will leave you with a terrifying thought, just as you can think of a colony of bees as a single organism, perhaps a human society is as well, and war is nothing more than competition between the colonies where there is a colony brain - a societal brain. This is where there is such strong resistance to propaganda (where a cancer is taking over the thinking by corrupting it) and a strong resistance to multiculturalism (which leaves part of the organism with less ability to effect the overall thinking of society). This is nationalism. The problem with this sort of thinking though, is I'm a worker drone trying to understand the overall functioning of a colony which is most likely well beyond my ability to understand or any individual to understand. But I resent being limited in being able to form correct understanding by given limited information and false information. This limits my input to a societal brain - what you might think of as a national consciousness. I think this is overall bad for the society itself.

Religion may be a supranational organism as well. Globalism might be as well. This leads down a dark path though in that you are ceding your individuality to a "greater good" and becoming a worker drone or even worse, just a cell. A cog in the machinery.
47   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 10, 6:18am  

The pressures of “natural selection” produce variants that are adapted to thrive under certain conditions. We can even see symbiotic relationships between organisms. But bacteria have not been observed to become anything but a different bacteria. People like to live in a fantasy world where God does not exist and order can develop from disorder. Yet the observed world gives no evidence that rocks + water + energy + time = origin of species. But that is the mythology of the day.

If “aliens” showed up tomorrow and said that actually all life on earth was created by them, people would instantly discard the mythology above because even science fiction is more plausible than the above equation.
48   GNL   2020 Dec 10, 7:19am  

PeopleUnited says
The pressures of “natural selection” produce variants that are adapted to thrive under certain conditions. We can even see symbiotic relationships between organisms. But bacteria have not been observed to become anything but a different bacteria. People like to live in a fantasy world where God does not exist and order can develop from disorder. Yet the observed world gives no evidence that rocks + water + energy + time = origin of species. But that is the mythology of the day.

If “aliens” showed up tomorrow and said that actually all life on earth was created by them, people would instantly discard the mythology above because even science fiction is more plausible than the above equation.

Great points. There's a movie (part 1 and 2) called "God is not dead". The movie goes into how only like kind can produce like kind. The starting movie scene is of a professor telling his class that they will fail if they do not write a declaration saying God does not exist. However, if the student can prove him wrong, that student will get an A. One of his male students challenges him. Good movie for anyone whether or not they are believers.
49   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 10, 7:21am  

PeopleUnited says
and the human eye did NOT happen by chance


I KNEW you'd bring up the fucking eye. Hello no. That (along with plenty of other messed up features of life) was not designed by some omnipotent otherworldly being. Unless of course that being used evolution as the mechanism. But you people basically state it's too stupid to do things that way. Oh, the irony.

Our (and virtually all animals except for things like octopus which branched off eons ago) eyes are pieces of crap. The light comes in through a lens gets flipped upside down, goes through blood vessels then bounces off of a mirror in the back everywhere except where there is an unfortunate nerve bundle. At this point you still haven't sensed anything but the light is leaving/shooting back out of your face. Fortunately we do have photo receptors facing the back of our heads that pick off many of the photons before they escape back out.

Octopi on the other hand have eyes that work the way you think yours work.

But you wouldn't know about that because you just subscribe to psycho babble that other fundies barf out. There are literally entire libraries dedicated to this shit and mountains of evidence you are ignorant of. Because you don't read that stuff / didn't even read the short articles I posted. You aren't educated in the subject. Still you feel you're an expert.

Here is a glaring example:

The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes,[26]:74–75 is cited as evidence of evolution, as opposed to Intelligent Design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.[27]:360–362

Nobody would design something like that intentionally unless they were an asshoe. That nerve should be maybe 6-8 inches. It's a hot mess in humans as well:



Evolution doesn't 'design' stuff. You can't prove god. You can prove evolution to some sort of 99.99999999% probability.
50   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 10, 7:47am  

The 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Pseudoscience. Never confuse that with science. It's snake oil basically.
51   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 10, 8:26am  

PeopleUnited says
That is what I mean when I say I don’t believe in evolution. I don’t believe a bacterium can become a mouse over time. A bacteria will always evolve into another bacteria. A dog will always evolve into another type of dog, and a human will always evolve into another type of human.


You can't have it both ways bud. You realize you are contradicting yourself here don't you? You say things don't evolve and that they do. Just with some sort of artificial constraint that is backed by nada.
52   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 10, 8:29am  

just_passing_through says
Evolution doesn't 'design' stuff.


At least you got something right.

Evolution generally is a reductive process resulting in mutants that are more susceptible to changing conditions than their ancestors.
53   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 10, 8:30am  

Oh, I got it all right. You still haven't answered my questions:

1. How old is the earth?
2. Is it flat or round?
3. Did Jesus ride a brontosaurus?
54   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 10, 8:32am  

just_passing_through says
You can't have it both ways bud. You realize you are contradicting yourself here don't you? You say things don't evolve and that they do. Just with some sort of artificial constraint that is backed by nada.


No evolution doesn’t create new species, that is what I mean and any idiot can see.

Colony of bacteria becomes new colony of bacteria, that is an example of evolution that Does exist and can be observed.

Colony of Bacteria becomes Bill Gates. That is an example of bad science Fiction.
55   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 10, 8:32am  

Answer! The! Questions!
56   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 10, 8:38am  

Glad you at least acknowledge Jesus was here riding on one of his creations. It is a start.
57   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 10, 8:39am  

Yeah, that's what I thought.
58   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 10, 8:41am  

He may have named that donkey “brontosaurus” he does have a sense of humor you know.
59   richwicks   2020 Dec 10, 9:18pm  

PeopleUnited says
No evolution doesn’t create new species, that is what I mean and any idiot can see.


But it does.

Do you think that a horse and a donkey don't have a common ancestor? They can interbreed to produce a mule provided a male donkey has intercourse with a female horse yet the offspring is sterile.

Donkeys and horses have different numbers of chromosomes so they are incompatible enough so that offspring is defective in that it cannot reproduce, a mule is not another species, it's a combination of two different species that are close enough that they are able to produce an offspring.

It has been conjectured that human beings can interbred with some apes. There are claims that it has been done, but this breaks a wall of morality so it is only rumor although attempts at making such a being are confirmed but I think they are all invitro - meaning the creation was terminated. I consider such an experiment monstrous but it may have been done well beyond that.

www.youtube.com/embed/WM28BxRnShI

That is about Oliver, who was thought to have possibly been a chimp/human hybrid. Officially, he was simply a chimp. He died in his 50's but chimps rarely live beyond 40 in captivity. He was an outlier in many ways regardless.

Ultimately, we don't really know, we cannot prove evolution is the basis for all the variation of life we see, but there's tremendous amounts of evidence to suggest it happened. To create a new species would take at least centuries and it would be monstrous to do it. Bacteria, fine - but anything else it would require a great deal of suffering by drastically changing environments and forcing mutation. We've already seen major bacterial mutation in nature, one bacteria learned to feed off from the waste of a nylon production plant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

Moving from one cell to multiple cells may not be possible with existing living things today or changing an asexual reproducing organism to a sexual reproducing organism may be impossible. We are the result of billions of years of evolution today - our early progenitors were entirely unlike us. We can advance, but it's doubtful we can go back. Every living thing today has found a niche and exploited it. When life began, presumably, there were many unused niches and life was far less complex.

I do miss my faith, I have to admit. Certainty had its comfort. The more you learn the more you realize you don't know so you want to learn more - it's a never-ending cycle. It is a vicious cycle or perhaps a virtuous cycle. I'm not at the end of it yet, so I cannot know.

I will not dump on your religious faith, but understand, what I believe is not based on faith. It's possible, I suppose, that there's a massive conspiracy to misdirect me, but if there is, it's not of human origin and the conspiracy would stretch over more than centuries but millennia. You might say Lucifer* has done this. Maybe - but he's made a convincing argument. Why is God not intervening? Am I to be punished for all eternity for my curiosity and my desire to eliminate my own ignorance? Well, if I am, I am. I cannot leave this course at this point and I've been on it for decades.

* Lucifer isn't really the devil or Satan, he was a king according to the Bible.
60   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 10, 10:38pm  

Eight generations... Eight generations and any hint of your ancestor's DNA within yours is ^gone.

I have some genealogists in my family who traced our ancestry back to William the Bastard/Conqueror. We stayed Kings through a few Henries then branched off with some lady whose name I've forgotten. I'd imagine millions of Americans could make the same claim.

Yet I don't have ^any connection genetically to the 9th generation of my ancestors. Only the fact that if they didn't exist, I wouldn't.

^Excluding chrY and chrM.

Some consider the Y chromosome to be a damaged chromosome. It's certainly missing the 4 arms required to recombine with X so you basically get a straight copy with some random mutations. I believe it's typically 2 but don't quote me on that. Despite sounding small, that blows up Male lineage ancestry trees and is a problem for modern genetics. We used to just look several or a dozen short stretches (STRs, short tandem repeats, ex: AGTAAGTAAGTAAGTA) of DNA that don't change much vs. point mutations (SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms, ex: A) over large strategic portions of the chromosome. Newer trees blow up with many more branches each generation and it's incredibly hard to keep track of. Nobody really wants to take it on in any sort of consortium. National Geographic is probably the best but that's private IP.

Mitochondria is DNA from an ancient parasite and isn't in our nucleus with the rest of our chromosomes. It's basically like a bacteria with a ring genome. The former is used for Male lineage ancestry tests, the latter for Female. It doesn't change much at all and you have thousands of mitochondria in each cell making it more likely to survive a disaster like 911. Mito was used to group body bits found after that for years to deliver to family. I've used it to identify dead Vietnamese War dead this decade.

Both of these older techniques didn't have a lot of statistical power in a database. By that I mean if they did a dragnet on a database the probability they'd found an innocent person might be 1:million or 1:10million. That shit didn't hold up in court so nobody did it. However if you genotyped a suspect and got a match then it's like 1:10billion that the match is a false positive which does hold up. So that's how it ran for a long long time.

Now with the new stuff they're doing dragnets on databases, finding family members and then narrowing to the guilty person. But they've fucked up and gotten innocent people too. I could tell you stories... Moral of this one: Encourage genetic privacy with respect to the government. The GINA legislation ain't good e'nuff for that by a long shot.
61   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 10, 10:45pm  

Not having that other arm on chrY prevents repair (no example on the other one for your lil robots to read from) and turns out may be the biggest reason Males live shorter lives than Females. We get large chucks deleted in that region and rack up mutations there more quickly. When I said two above that's inter=generational. Over your lifespan thousands.

A typical human baby is born with a genome composed of their parents that has been rearranged. In addition to that they average about 7 thousand novel mutations not found in the parental units.

Autism is strongly linked to large structural variations like deletions (chunks missing) in Males. For so long we've told females not to have kids at an advanced age but it's looking like we might point the finger at Males for that one.
62   richwicks   2020 Dec 10, 11:52pm  

just_passing_through says
Autism is strongly linked to large structural variations like deletions (chunks missing) in Males. For so long we've told females not to have kids at an advanced age but it's looking like we might point the finger at Males for that one.


What is your opinion on people who believe autism is linked to vaccine damage? A friend of mine considers it a possibility that his friend's child was damaged from it. Neither of us is certain of course, but the vaccination schedule has changed drastically since we were kids. I think I got 7 vaccinations as a child, today it's like 70.

My friend's friend got his child "caught up" in vaccinations, where his child received several vaccinations at once and it was then he thought his son had changed and had become autistic. I've talked to my parents (who are in their 80's now) who were shocked and considered this insane to get several vaccinations at one time. When I was vaccinated, it was under a very strict schedule and spread out. Thimerosal I've heard is still used, that's a mercury compound. I know it's supposed to be an inactive preservative, but cryogenic preservation is widely available today. Thimerosal should be outlawed, even for animal use.

I am probably very ignorant in this area, and am just asking for correction and opinion.
63   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 11, 8:42am  

richwicks says
PeopleUnited says
No evolution doesn’t create new species, that is what I mean and any idiot can see.


But it does.


For clarification: when I say that evolution does not create new species, I mean that bacteria cannot evolve to become a mouse or a human. Certainly a horse and a donkey which are the same type of animal, share a common lineage. They belong to the same Genus together with zebras. That horses, donkeys and zebras have a common ancestor is evident. And they will always be members of that Genus, their offspring will always be horse like. They will never be anything but horses, just like bacteria will never be anything but bacteria.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

I must correct you with regard to 2 statements.

First: Lucifer is a created being. He is an angel, who chose to pursue his own will and persuaded a third of the Angels God created to join his rebellion. I suppose he might be considered a leader of the fallen angels but he is not a king. He does desire worship, for some vain reason. He currently is free and has access to both Heaven and earth where he currently works his influence and also spends time accusing Christians of evil deeds to the Throne of God.

Second: it is never too late to listen to the voice of God and let Him in to your heart and life. The fact that you have life and ability to reason is evidence that God still has purpose for you and can give you ability to realize that purpose. And chief among those purposes is to agree with God that he can redeem that life you characterize as on a unalterable (irredeemable) course.
64   Shaman   2020 Dec 11, 9:13am  

richwicks says
Ultimately, we don't really know, we cannot prove evolution is the basis for all the variation of life we see, but there's tremendous amounts of evidence to suggest it happened.


All this is true. However, science has been utterly powerless to explain how life began. Even unicellular organisms are complex beyond belief. DNA may exist on its own for a short time, but has no means of replication without cellular machinery (ribosomes) to read it and reassemble it. It’s a serious mystery as to how life ever got started, and the mystery only deepens with every biochemical discovery. It’s like discovering a small flat rock on the ground, and discounting it as a simple natural phenomenon for millennia. Then someone examines it closely and finds it permeated with minuscule wiring. The more it’s examined, the more complex it reveals itself to be. Eventually we discover that it’s a computer CPU, and the idea that it could have arrived here through some natural process is entirely debunked.
That’s exactly where we are with biochemistry. Life is more akin to micro machinery than organic ooze, regardless of what it resembles. Like the flat little rock that turned out to be a CPU, the cell has proven to be packed full of ridiculous complexity, making the CPU look positively simple by comparison.
65   richwicks   2020 Dec 11, 9:50am  

Shaman says
That’s exactly where we are with biochemistry. Life is more akin to micro machinery than organic ooze, regardless of what it resembles. Like the flat little rock that turned out to be a CPU, the cell has proven to be packed full of ridiculous complexity, making the CPU look positively simple by comparison.


Examine the solutions that an AI will come up with. It's well beyond the ability of an engineer to generate the same complexity. It produces crazy solutions. That's what life is like, it's got crazy solutions. An engineer creates an environment, basically, to have an AI reproduce but what the AI ultimately becomes is bizarrely complicated. We don't study the solutions that are produced, we just test and use them.
66   richwicks   2020 Dec 11, 10:02am  

PeopleUnited says

For clarification: when I say that evolution does not create new species, I mean that bacteria cannot evolve to become a mouse or a human.


No, it doesn't, but something that is neither a mouse nor a bacteria is a common ancestor.. What this was, we have no idea. There's no fossil record, and the ancestor doesn't exist, it's evolved ancestors drove it to extinction.

I won't bother to argue with you in regard to Lucifer. Lucifer does refer to a king but I don't want to argue it. It's a trivial point to me.

PeopleUnited says
Second: it is never too late to listen to the voice of God and let Him in to your heart and life. The fact that you have life and ability to reason is evidence that God still has purpose for you and can give you ability to realize that purpose. And chief among those purposes is to agree with God that he can redeem that life you characterize as on a unalterable (irredeemable) course.


I appreciate the concern, however if there is a god, I cannot possibly conceive it as the Christian depiction. I do not wish to argue religion, because I recognize it is useful to people.

15 years ago, I would have, and I can make some powerful arguments. I've hurt people by doing this I believe thinking I was doing the right thing at the time. I had a fanatical belief in "truth". That's a naive viewpoint I see now. I once saw religious faith as dangerous as any unreasonable belief - equivalent to danger in believing in communism. Religion I believe, at least the western ones, are used as a political tool, and I still believe that, but they can resist the power of the state. A bunch of intellects cannot.
67   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 11, 7:38pm  

richwicks says
What is your opinion on people who believe autism is linked to vaccine damage?


I don't have one because I haven't seen any data. There's some nasties in vaccines though so I'd guess it would not surprise me. I sat near the lead on this while he was still working on it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6449150/

A lighter read:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/autistic-children-may-inherit-dna-mutations-their-fathers
68   Onvacation   2020 Dec 12, 7:16am  

richwicks says
I had a fanatical belief in "truth".

Truth? or facts?

Get used to it with the new administration.
69   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 12, 12:06pm  

Shaman says
However, science has been utterly powerless to explain how life began.


Not true at all. There are many great hypotheses. We're a long way from the Miller-Urey experiments posted above. But yeah, we still can't create life from dirt yet.

https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/uc_san_diego_researchers_may_be_shedding_light_on_lifes_chemical_origins

But even better @shaman, just look at all of these articles and new insights/results that have been building up over the past 13 years:

https://www.scripps.edu/krishnamurthy/news.html

We are going to recreate it at some point...
70   Shaman   2020 Dec 12, 5:52pm  

I appreciate your science approach, @just_passing_through
But I took a look at that and it’s a long way from anything we’d consider life. Innovative approach I guess. But a few peptides that can make more of themselves in the presence of the right kinds of proteins won’t accomplish much. It’s still the scientific equivalent of hand waving over the difficult bits.
71   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 13, 11:21am  

Shaman says
hand waving over the difficult bits.


Yeah, life didn't start with difficult bits. It's not going to look like that at all. That 2nd link has more than a dozen approaches not just peptide replication. One is a primitive krebs cycle for Pete's sake!
72   Rin   2020 Dec 13, 11:52am  

PeopleUnited says
Glad you at least acknowledge Jesus was here riding on one of his creations.


How about the idea that Paul was a channeler and only knows Jesus as a channeled entity? That's also a start.
73   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 13, 12:45pm  

Rin says
How about the idea that Paul was a channeler and only knows Jesus as a channeled entity? That's also a start.


I think I know where you're going with this but I'm going to mangle the fuck out of it and not get it right:

Isn't it true that apparently Jesus died, rose whatever and then nothing happened for something like 50 or 100 years. Then a cloud or a bolt of lighting or something told someone (Paul?) the story and that's when the religion started? There was definitely some large gap in time as per what I read long ago...
74   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 16, 1:01am  

just_passing_through says
Rin says
How about the idea that Paul was a channeler and only knows Jesus as a channeled entity? That's also a start.


I think I know where you're going with this but I'm going to mangle the fuck out of it and not get it right:

Isn't it true that apparently Jesus died, rose whatever and then nothing happened for something like 50 or 100 years. Then a cloud or a bolt of lighting or something told someone (Paul?) the story and that's when the religion started? There was definitely some large gap in time as per what I read long ago...


Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, he appeared to Mary and his disciples that same day. (Jews measure days from sundown to sundown so he may have technically rose on what we would call Saturday evening.) He appeared to many over the next 40 days before ascending into Heaven. 10 days later (After His Ascension) was Pentecost where God poured out His Spirit into the hearts of men and women who were gathered in His name and this is the start of the church. So, no gap.

Paul was actually a devout Religious leader in Jewish traditions who persecuted and sought to kill Christians until God showed him his error. Saul became Paul after his conversion to Christianity, this happened about a year after Pentecost. Paul was roughly 30 years old at the time of his conversion and was essentially a contemporary of the disciples (Peter, John, Luke etc...) who unlike the disciples never met Jesus in he flesh. Though they never met, surely Paul knew of Jesus and his followers who Paul sought to destroy as heretics before his conversion, let’s just say that Jesus made a bit of an impression on the world of his day.
75   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 16, 7:16am  

What happened to the church immediately after Jesus ascended into heaven? During the first twenty years of the church, no New Testament book was written. Paul only began writing about twenty years later, and the Gospels only began to appear about forty years after Jesus’ ascension.

https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/the-first-twenty-years-what-happened-to-the-church-immediately-after-jesus-died/

That gap.

« First        Comments 36 - 75 of 94       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions