Ten oz

I was implying something grave.

I have not stated belief in god can't be rational. It is how you feel and not something you can empirical prove is true. You cannot prove people are genetically predisposed to specifically believe in god(s). Belief in god(s) can be rational but it also can be irrational. You are loosely linking religion to science and calling it an evolutionary advantage. Implying religion has been an evolutionary advantage, in my opinion, is a rather high value judgement. I don't think this statement really means anything. Saying "some aspects" doesn't describe to what degree you mean. Taken at face value the statement also fails to act as proof humans are hardwired for religion. I don't see how any type of "thinking-scheme" wouldn't. Some aspects of all human attempts to understand life and its origins or the origins of anything at all can be describe as you are describing this way.

Much has been made of Trump's mental health. Many faux mental healthcare experts have attempted to diagnosis Trump via typos in his tweets or errors in his speech. I don't think a person can be accurately diagnosed over the television. I have no idea what ails Trump's mental faculties but something does appear to be off. In the video below Trump mispronounces the word origin as oranges while discussing the Mueller investigation. It is an innocent enough mistake. Trump appears to be aware of the mistake and describes what he means as the beginning or how it (Mueller investigation) started. Disturbingly though Trump continues to unsuccessfully try to say the word "origin" but it just keeps coming out as "oranges". Trump seems to be aware of the error and continuing to attempt to say it to correct the error but is unable to. He could have just replaced it with the word beginning or started having previous shown that he is aware either mean the something in context to what he is attempting to say. Perhaps it has nothing to do with his mental health and was just a standard slip up. It just seems to happen a lot with Trump and I find it strange. If there is an underlying medical issue it could ultimately lead the end of his presidency.

....and my first sentence stated that I think the answer to the questioned posed in the OP is yes.

AI stands for Artificial Intelligence.

Any number of things can be rational. Believing in god can be rational. I am not arguing otherwise. I am arguing that a rational position isn't necessarily a true position. The example I used here earlier was:

I think the answer to both questions is yes however I do not think human developed AI is headed in that direction. I do not think intelligence, as understood by humans, is a key component to something being sentient. As such I do not think AI is currently moving towards sentience. I don't believe the ability to feel and perceive existence is correlated with intelligence. Very intelligent people are not more sentient than those with below average levels of intelligence. Creating something sentient and creating something super highly intelligent are separate feats which don't have to be connected to one another. Perhaps they can be but it seems to me like a more complicate way of doing it.

This thread's topic asks why humans have worshiped some from of god for thousands of years and if it is accurate to from that worship a need within humans for god. In response other posters commented that belief/faith in god(s) wasn't based on logic. In response you asserted: That is the context of our exchange. Please do not broaden this out to a philosophical debate about the purpose of science. That isn't what we are discussing. Lets keep focused on this threads topic. You has stated that it is rational to believe in god and that humans are hardwired to do so. It is a value judgement; "hardwired" and "rational". I have argued that your position is relative. That seemly attempting to be rational or drawing agreement from others that a position is rational doesn't make it correct/true.

I never said anything improving scientific theories. You have broadened your position out significantly in your response. Above is the first post of yours I quoted in this thread. It is a value judgement of an argument based consensus. That is what I have been posting about. Not ways theories can be improved over time.

Should this situation still be considered a national emergency if we can wait a year to act?

Sure, but we do not have multi million year old samples.

Perhaps not this time though. Living fossil is a superficial title and we all agree. The OP is asks about DNA. We don't have testable DNA from a hundred million years ago.

Sure, but no more correlated than anything else.

We do know, per the fossil record, how things probably looked. That is why.

Right, my point was that it isn't entirely accurate to say something has changed "little" over time. We don't know. Rather it is more accurate to say that the appearance seems to have changed little overtime.

Agreement and truth are not the same .Science does the best it can but there has been tremendous trial and error. I am an engineer and have worked on numerous projects where the consensus of many failed repeatedly. Any number of scientific discoveries were born from failure. Discourse and agreement does not produce truth. It certainly can but so too can dumb luck or trial and error.

My understand is that Living Fossil is a superficial label. It simple means a species looks nearly the same to what we assume it did in years past per the fossil record. Fossils however are typically just mineral deposits and not material suitable for DNA testing. More over DNA more that a few thousand year old has seldom been recovered and even in the best natural preserved conditions on earth DNA degrades over time. So when we read about living fossils like the Coelacanth said to have remained the same for 400 million years that assessment is not one being made using DNA. We (humans) actually have no idea how similar the DNA is.

Because you continued on after the part where we agreed and imply a correlation between consensus and truth despite seeming to realize there isn't one. I see no relationship between being a rational thought or belief and something being accurate or true. A person can come to an objectively wrong conclusion while doing their best to be rational. Every group exists in the exclusion of various other groups. The free discourse you reference only exist within individual groups. What you are describing has never existed among humans on earth. I consider the relation to be intertwine. They (ideology and philosophy) lead 2 and from each other. Sun Tzu was one of the worlds great philosopher after all. The Art of War isn't about free discourse or groups of people being open to better arguments.

I agree. Which is why I don't seethe point in even stating it. All the definitions are relative. The community one belongs to has a direct relationship with the values one holds. Taking a value home and then back out again doesn't change the relative nature it. The synonyms for rational like logical, reasonable, prudent, wise, and etc all require a modicum on community value judgement to define but the correctness of an argument remains a choice which generally can not be evaluated til a later date. Its hindsight which is 20/20 after all and not communal agreement. Using what one knows the make the best decision one can to achieve an outlined goal is good as most can ever do. Even still what one knows can be rubbish, their decisions can be bias, and there goals may be destructive. It is possible to rationally go about doing irrational things. One can rationally make an irrational argument. In my opinion attempts to weight a position's value or correctness based on agreement is problematic. Among an individual community perhaps. There are philosophical ideas being considered by other communities which I think are dangerous boarding on evil. We most often replace philosophy with ideology when discussing things we consider negative like racism, sexism, religious extremism, and etc but it can often be a fine line. Ideology is often born from philosophy.

A position being rational and a position being true are not equal. A position being agreed upon or accepted by a community doesn't make it true either. A position being accepted simply makes it accepted. History is full of communities of people rationally (relative to their knowledge) believing things which were not true. Good arguments are still limited by the knowledge contained among those making the argument. Isn't right and wrong relative to ones values, norms, personal preferences etc?

Only 61% of murders are cleared (considered solved). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances Several hundred thousand people go missing per year. Most missing people are located but 90,000 a year are not. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2017-ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics.pdf/view Many missing persons could be murdered most unsolved missing persons are presumed dead. By contrast there are 19,000 known murders per year with a less than 12,000 considered solved. So that leaves the door open to potentially 95,000 unsolved murders per yer. We do not know the race of those potential murders. Most missing persons are white. So claiming African Americans commit 50% of the murder is not accurate. African American make up 50% of the prosecution. Likewise African Americans make of about 50% of all drug arrests but that doesn't mean African Americans are doing 50% of all the drugs. What you highlighted is merely an example of how much more policed African American communities are.

I remember after Romney lost in 2012 many people insisting that Republicans had to reach out to latino voters. That demographic shifts in the country were such that Republicans simply could no longer win pandering strictly to white christian voters. Rather than seek broader that support Republicans focused their efforts on voter suppression passing Voter ID laws. We saw how questionable outcomes were during the mid term election just a few months ago. In FL and GA in particular it is likely Republicans stole Senate seats. Their is a Congressional seat in North Carolina that still hasn't been decided since the Nov. election, link. Here in the U.S. their is not a national system for voting. It is handle at the local level across the country. Some locations have multiple days of voting, mail in voting, months of registrations, and etc while other have tightly controlled windows of time and locations where one can vote. The process can take minutes or several hours. I think the idea that democrats winning the popular vote isn't good enough and they must further compromise their position to be even more popular is a losing mentality. City by city and county by county local Democratic officials need to fight harder to ensure voting booths, coherent ballot instructions, adequate voting hours, and etc. Average voter turnout in Canada was 68% 2015's election. Here in the U.S. turnout was 55% for 2016's elections. If the U.S. could achieve turnout numbers closer to Canada's there is no way Trump could be re-elected. Our pitiful turnout numbers exist by design. Voting is made difficult on purpose to suppress turnout. It doesn't matter is it is Biden, Warren, Harris, or whomever on the ballot if the ballot isn't filled out and turned in. Democrats win the popular vote and polls show that they hold the more popular positions across the board on nearly every issue. Stealing away voters isn't what Democrats need to focus. Ensuring people vote, are able to conveniently vote, is what they need to focus on.

I commented a couple months ago that I wasn't interested in Biden running. Current events haven't change my view.

The fact that it was done legally is relevant to this discussion. Had it been illegal slave traders and owners could have been prosecuted for crimes and forced to pay restitution. During segregation institutions could have been sued for discrimination and forced to pay damages. Because it was legal those who benefited never paid any price for their actions and got to keep 100% of everything they gained through slavery and segregation. The victims simply received a reduction in the victimization they had to endure. I don't understand what connection you are making? To my knowledge no one here has stated or implied profit was made off exploiting slaves. This is an honest question. I do not understand what you are attempting to say. Attempting to answer it with more questions of me only makes the matter more confusing. I don't think the glut of associated research is behind the slow move towards acknowledging evolution or climate change. In the case of evolution less people are religious and religion is the primary source of evolution denial. I think the decline in religious affiliation it mostly rooted in how interconnected the world is today. Religions generally have a tight fixed perspective of the world that haven't evolved quickly enough to meet the philosophical needs of their followers. Evolution research hasn't created disillusionment in Religion. Pedophilia, terrorism of extremists, homophobia, sexism, and etc have created the disillusionment. The information regarding evolution has always been available to those while to review it. I think views on Climate Change are shifting do to the hurricanes and floods reeking havoc across many of the states responsible for electing anti climate politicians. The price individuals are starting to pay is making the propaganda less palatable. I am not against a study. I the govt wants to take a look at it and commission a study I am fine with that. I just don't think it will change anyone's mind. The information is already out there. I am sure most Universities within the HBCU network have any number of research papers on the issue.

Illegally per what law? I don't understand your market reference. Can you elaborate on what you mean?