Genady

Residents of Montenegro are not the only people supporting Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are others who understand that indigenous Ukrainians needed help: Papuan Rebels Succumb to Bogus Kremlin War Propaganda (polygraph.info)

You're right, I should've done it in the OP. Here it is, from the horse's mouth: Since at the time MIT campus was shut down due to Covid, the course lectures are recorded from Zoom sessions.

This hypothesis is more subtle than the one of direct pumping oxygen into atmosphere by cyanobacteria. I was surprised to learn that the latter is not as settled as I thought.

Thank you. Only until they start using a foul language.

No.

Great Oxygenation Event: MIT Scientists’ New Hypothesis for One of the Grand Mysteries of Science (scitechdaily.com)

Heroes in Russia: Anti-war protester in studio disrupts live Russian state TV news | Reuters

I tend to think that it has. 5000 years is enough time for changes in genetic make up of populations. Only 10,000 years ago we did not have lactose tolerance, for example. Plus, we certainly grow up and live in a changing environment. Our diet, life style, immunity have changed. Being a product of our genes and environment, our bodies and chemistry perhaps have changed.

But that phrase is the only point I have been discussing here. I've stated it way back: The rest was not interesting to me, sorry.

I also agree that every new knowledge has foundations in some previous knowledge. As @swansont also said above, nobody claimed otherwise. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that every new medicine is an older medicine in a new form, combination, or synthesis. The later doesn't follow from the former. For example, a new medicine can be born in a non-medical, e.g. biochemical research.

But what is its counterpart or predecessor in the previous medical practice?

Obviously, it is not my area, but let's try, for educational purposes. How about mRNA vaccines?

In nature, or in previous medical practice?

My point is that a new medicine is not necessarily "the same medicines in new forms and combinations, or else their synthetic counterparts," even if it was obtained using previously known methods, tools, techniques, etc.

I see, the key is that the previous knowledge may be any previous knowledge. In this case, it is just trivial. For example, to get a new knowledge we use a language, which is a previous knowledge. In the specific subject matter here, a new knowledge in medicine might grow out of a previous knowledge, let's say, in astronomy. Not necessarily out of a previous knowledge in medicine. Thus, it is completely new in medicine, not related to anything existing in medicine prior to that.

1. How replacing previous knowledge constitutes a growing out of previous knowledge? 2. How accidental discoveries are growing out of previous knowledge?

I think that the question implicitly refers to mature, egg-laying chicken. In this case, DNA of a chicken is not a chicken. So the chicken egg came first.

I understand that galaxies are not expanding. I'm curious, what does space expands within a galaxy mean?

Yes, its role is trivial. It doesn't play a non-trivial role.

I'm saying that the concept of information doesn't play a role in the theory taught in this course. BTW, it is not an online course. It is a recording from the MIT class, just like all other MIT OCW courses.

It is not about information.

You are not mistaken. It didn't touch Shannon entropy yet, and I don't expect it to do so.

Ukraine using drones to 'great effect' on Russian forces: Pentagon updates (yahoo.com)

Can this diarrhea be stopped?

What does it mean? (my emphasis)