Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/25/19 in Posts

  1. 7 points
    So looking at the image below, it appears that Galagidae have recognizable soles, but Cynocephalidae do not : and when we look at a primate phylogeny, we see the split between these two groups is around 65 million years ago: So soles originated about 65 million years ago, give or take. You meant soles as in soles of the feet, right?
  2. 4 points
    That's not a fact - e.g. polyploidy. If you aren't equally weighting all mutations, none of the math in the entire post makes any sense. This probabilistic numerology argument is not new and founded in foundational misunderstandings of genetics and evolution: DNA encodes amino acids in triplicates of base pairs called codons. There are 64 possible codons, encoding 20 amino acids, and stop. The translation of codons into amino acids is highly redundant, with numerous codons denoting each amino acid. 61 encode amino acids, and three encode stop. There are no untranslatable codons. This has a number of implications:  1) All possible DNA sequences can be translated into proteins. There is no such thing as a "gibberish" DNA code. 2) Because of the redundancy, multiple changes can occur without affecting the translation of the sequence. 3) Arguments from low probability are not apt. Given all possible arrangements of nucleotides can encode proteins, there are no null sequences. Consider it more like a dice throw. Rolling one hundred sixes in a row has a probability of (1/6)100 or 1.5 x 10-78. Except ALL combinations of 100 throws have this probability and if you perform the experiment, an outcome is inevitable. Claiming that the low probability makes the outcome impossible ex post facto is not sensible. If you're open to it, a major component missing from the argument posed is explained by the concept of fitness landscapes, which allows one to model the adaptation of a population given different likelihoods of each possible mutation proliferating in a population through time. The entire landscape would be all of your "unrealized genomes" but because of the weighting of selection on certain regions of the landscape, some mutations are more likely to fix than others. Step size on the landscape can change drastically if large scale mutation like translocation, duplication or deletion occurs (i.e. not all changes are incremental). See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519396900491 https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/106365602317301754 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(199712)29:4<461::AID-PROT6>3.0.CO;2-B etc.
  3. 4 points
    Brevity and sarcasm. No wonder no-one knows WTF you're talking about half the time.
  4. 3 points
    You're getting up and going to work tomorrow, aren't you?
  5. 3 points
    Schrödinger would probably say "yes and no"
  6. 3 points
    I'd say early to mid-twentieth century. But it wasn't God, at least not directly. It was Ray Charles.
  7. 3 points
    Not at all. Inflationary theory is part of the BB scenario and was added to explain a couple of anomalies, namely the Flatness and Horizon problem. The main proposal of the BB, is that the universe/spacetime evolved from a hot dense state. We have ample evidence that this is so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale).
  8. 3 points
    Apologies, I misinterpreted and thought you meant a few weeks in the literal sense, and yes, I knew that - I was making an analogy to a well established scientific theory and an inappropriate alternative hypothesis rather than trying to directly comment on your own example. The point was that evolutionary theory does have plenty of alternative mechanisms and hypotheses - it's just that ID insists that none of them are adequate and there HAS to be a supernatural explanation. It's not really the case that it is one explanation or the other.
  9. 3 points
    I hate to spoil the fun, but it really is "just deserts", not "just desserts"! The "deserts" is a noun related to "deserves". To quote from Garner's Modern American Usage: Obviously this is the most important thing I have to do in the office on a Monday morning.
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
    The bolded part? The measure of the rationals in the reals is zero. If you "throw a dart at the real line," or randomly pick a real number out of a hat, the probability that the number you pick is rational is zero. Yet you might get lucky and pick a rational. In infinite probability theory, probability zero doesn't mean an event is impossible; and probability 1 doesn't mean that it's certain. As a (perhaps) intuitively visualizable example, suppose I flip a fair coin infinitely many times. The probability that they're all heads is zero. Yet there's no reason why they couldn't all be heads. It's just really really unlikely. As unlikely as the sequence of coin flips representing a rational number in binary [with a binary point in front of the sequence so that it represents some real number in the unit interval].
  12. 2 points
    You also need to note that there is a group of people on forums who hold a much more prestigious title than the ones who are mods - the ones who were asked to moderate and refused
  13. 2 points
    I’ll give you an honest answer since you deseve one because you’ve been opening so many threads with so many questions; Firstly, your knowledge needs to exceed the knowledge of majority of the posters, you need to be able to give fruitful, coherent answers to the questions people ask, difficult questions. Secondly, you need to be patient and never give in to emotion, you always need to keep your cool. Thirdly, you need to be able to dedicate a lot of your time, months and years. Also a degree related to the section you moderate would be welcome. And knowledge...deep knowledge on the subject you moderate. Which section which you would like to moderate do you have in mind?
  14. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note Please read the rules regarding speculations. Speculation on this site is supposed to be supported by evidence or at least an established theoretical framework. It is not a place for a freewheeling exercise in fact-free nonsense. Locked.
  15. 2 points
    I think I was trying to say, if nobody takes criticism of an idea personally, feelings don't have to enter into a discussion of the idea. In fact, emotions can cloud our reasoning, so removing them as much as possible is good methodology. I'm also over-sensitive about ideas that people claim to have spent years developing that are full of mistakes in the science. If someone had been mercilessly critical years ago, think what the person with the idea could have been working on.
  16. 2 points
    Because the book was written by people, trying to codify and justify their behavior?
  17. 2 points
    AKA 24/7 Reality TV shows. Binge-watching all 21,650 seasons of Man vs Beast. You will LONG for death.
  18. 2 points
    I don't think so, but others on this forum may have differing opinions.
  19. 2 points
    First thing? PUT. THE SHOVEL. DOWN! Claiming you have NO hobbies is ridiculous. You're purposely axing a perfectly good suggestion so you can remain alone. STOP IT. You can't tell me you don't play online games, or watch movies, or follow a TV series, or enjoy some activity that you could do with others for some socialization. Claiming you can't hold a conversation is another generalized negative image you're wearing purposely. You may not be good at it because you don't practice enough, but that's a long way from not being able to do it at all. STOP reaching for the dark paint when drawing a mental image of yourself! You've had some friends (not many, but some), which means your mother can't be your only contact with other people, yet you perceive it that way. I'll tell you something about friends, quantity isn't the key. And the only way to improve the quality is to put yourself out there and be a good friend. If you only have three tight friends by the time you're forty, you can consider yourself blessed. You've been practicing piling up all the negative aspects of your life as a weight that keeps you from doing better. You won't be able to throw all that off at once, so I recommend you start identifying what you want to improve, and make a list and tick the boxes. It's actually not as difficult as you think, because there are plenty of other people JUST LIKE YOU, swimming in a pool of muck you filled yourself. Once you put the shovel down, there's nowhere to go but up. Oh yeah, and this.
  20. 2 points
    You guys are 'quitters'. Isn't there always something else you want to do ?
  21. 2 points
    It's practically impossible to discuss anything rationally when you include irrational parameters. How much experience do you have with infinity, or things that are ALWAYS one way or another, or things that last forever? I don't think wishful thinking is meaningful. We had a thread about living forever some time ago, and IIRC, consensus was that a few centuries would be best, provided we age at a slower rate, so you don't spend 80% of your life as an old person. Personally, I know that I won't be bothered about not being alive when I'm dead, so it doesn't bother me now. Like StringJunky, it gives me a sense of peace knowing one day I'll go to sleep and it will just never end. I love life very much, but I know as long as my body keeps decaying, I'll reach a point where it's just not enjoyable struggling on.
  22. 2 points
    It calms me that one day I can just let go... It's the only thing that keeps me going; knowing that this life isn't forever... strange as it may seem. I used to take a lot of drugs to block out life, but now I take it full on and clear-headed because I know it's only temporary. Funny thing is that I'm enjoying life a lot more.
  23. 2 points
    1. Go back and read the posts you made that received multiple neg reps. 2. Don't be that person.
  24. 2 points
    “I don’t know anything about how electric cars work but I’m sure we can make a better one based on cheese”
  25. 2 points
    No. Everyone dies. That says nothing about the existence of gods. Only Christians are silly enough to believe that. If humans no longer exist, how will it be clear to them that gods exist? Presumably only those gods will know that they exist; but they would know that already, if they exist. You are not making much sense. Try thinking instead of preaching. (Reported)