Sohan Lalwani

Let me repeat this to you, just because something is general, DOES NOT MAKE IT INCORRECT. Let me repeat this to you, just because something is general, DOES NOT MAKE IT INCORRECT. First off I didn't use AI, and even if someone did it does not invalidate their argument.

Ok thank you!

I often see a lot of creationists on other platforms as well. I 100% agree, why not stay within your own religious community than attempt to combat a theory that's supported by a plethora of evidence.

According to the 2024 West Health-Gallup survey, 45% of U.S. adults reported that they either could not afford or could not access medical care or medications. That’s nearly half the adult population. The survey breaks this group into two categories: 37% are classified as “cost insecure”, meaning they struggle to afford or access care, while another 8% are considered “cost desperate,” meaning they are entirely unable to afford or access necessary medical services. These classifications are not mine—they are Gallup’s. Its validity I will have to check, so thank you for the feedback :) If someone skips a medical appointment or leaves a prescription unfilled because of cost, it doesn’t matter whether they technically had $20 in their account or $0. They still didn’t get care. So yes, barely able is one step above unable — but that step doesn’t help when you’re sick, uninsured, or deciding between groceries and insulin. The Gallup survey classifies 37% of Americans as “cost insecure” — meaning they struggle significantly to afford or access care. That’s not a casual inconvenience. It’s the difference between seeing a doctor now or ending up in the ER later.

My apologies! Its very hard to click on a small screen sometimes, I will remove it immediately. It was purely accidental.

I’ve re-read the exchange carefully, and while no one explicitly typed “You are a chatbot,” the statement “perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make 😉” isn’t neutral. It clearly implies that my response was lacking in human-level nuance or context awareness—traits often associated with bots. Whether meant as a joke or not, it directly questions the credibility of my post by attributing it to a non-human source. Also, pointing out that something is an “oversimplified version” doesn’t automatically mean it’s incorrect. General explanations often precede more technical ones, especially in discussions intended for a broad audience. That’s how scientific communication works. I’m happy to expand with the relevant caveats and geological complexities—such as overturned strata, faults, or unconformities—but calling the explanation “seriously in error” feels disproportionate. Finally, I'm not arguing that uniformitarianism is the only geological model. I never said that. My point was that the fossil record, as observed in undisturbed strata, shows a clear chronological sequence of life evolving over time. That’s consistent with what evolutionary theory predicts, and it remains a valid point, even if the initial phrasing was concise. So yes, really. What a "pity" we could not stick to basic scientific fact instead of snarking that someone with an opposing viewpoint is a chatbot. My post never claimed that the Law (or Principle) of Superposition applies universally in all geological contexts without exception. I specifically referred to how undisturbed strata support the fossil record’s chronological sequence, which is a foundational and uncontroversial point in both geology and paleontology. Yes, geological processes such as folding, faulting, and overturning can complicate layer orientation—but those exceptions are well understood, identifiable, and routinely accounted for in fieldwork and analysis. The existence of exceptions doesn’t invalidate the general principle; it highlights the importance of careful geological interpretation. Your claim that my post was “seriously in error” seems based on an assumption that I denied those complexities, when in fact I was making a generalized statement suitable for discussing evolutionary patterns—not stratigraphic anomalies. In science communication, generalizations are often necessary for clarity and accessibility, provided they don’t misrepresent the facts. I made no absolute claims and would gladly have expanded on the geological nuances if that were the focus. So while I appreciate the recommendation of Lake and Ralstall’s textbook, I’d encourage a more charitable reading of my original post. Describing superposition as a framework for evolutionary chronology is not an error—it’s exactly how it’s used by geologists and evolutionary biologists alike. Mischaracterizing that explanation as a denial of stratigraphic complexity does a disservice to the discussion. For the terminology: in geology, both “principle” and “law” of superposition are used interchangeably across textbooks and academic literature. For example, Nicholas & Paleobiology (1999) refer to it as the “principle,” while Reed & Bush (2007) call it the “law.” There's no strict rule dividing usage by discipline—it’s more about regional and pedagogical preferences.

There are a few sources to counter your claim such as https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1442-8903.2002.t01-1-00109.x For the second part of your question, yes, I am looking to enhance or stimulate biotic resistance. What makes you think that the native Australian myrmecological are not responding to foreign myrmecological stimuli?

Your counter to that evidence or poll is? I disagree with your "statement." The name of the article is quite literally "45 percent of Americans unable to afford or access healthcare" Meaning they could "BARELY" afford basic healthcare.

I see thank you. I am still failing to understand how word choice makes me a bot. I see, thank your the feedback.

I see thank you. I am still failing to understand how word choice makes me a bot.

"45% of U.S. adults reported difficulties affording healthcare" meaning they could BARELY afford it. the "8%" could not blatantly afford anything at all. There is also a survey done by "The Hill" https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/4778075-americans-healthcare-survey/ Which states "45 percent of Americans unable to afford or access healthcare: Survey" Although I must agree there is a somewhat major level of variation in these studies.

Still, it is a huge portion of people in America that can't afford healthcare so their statement does not apply to everyone.

According to a 2022 West Health-Gallup survey, approximately 45% of U.S. adults reported difficulties affording healthcare, with 8% categorized as "cost desperate," meaning they cannot afford or access necessary medical care. Additionally, a 2023 Commonwealth Fund survey found that 51% of working-age Americans struggle to afford healthcare, and 32% have medical debt, with many delaying or forgoing care due to cost concerns. Regarding vaccines, the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency has led to challenges in vaccine accessibility, particularly for the uninsured, as federal programs ensuring free vaccines have been discontinued. That is a huge portion of the American population that cannot afford basic healthcare. According to a 2022 West Health-Gallup survey, approximately 45% of U.S. adults reported difficulties affording healthcare, with 8% categorized as "cost desperate," meaning they cannot afford or access necessary medical care. Additionally, a 2023 Commonwealth Fund survey found that 51% of working-age Americans struggle to afford healthcare, and 32% have medical debt, with many delaying or forgoing care due to cost concerns. Regarding vaccines, the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency has led to challenges in vaccine accessibility, particularly for the uninsured, as federal programs ensuring free vaccines have been discontinued. That IS A HUGE PORTION of the American population that cannot afford basic healthcare.

The textbook definition is "Biotic resistance, the ability of communities to resist exotic invasions" - US Forest Service Research and Development Given the current ecological state of Australia's native ant species, how resistant do you think they would be to foreign ant species, and how effectively would they contribute to biotic resistance?

Perhaps you do not understand what I am talking about The principle of superposition is essential in proving the validity of evolutionary theory because it provides the chronological framework needed to trace the development of life on Earth. According to this principle, older rock layers lie beneath younger ones, meaning that fossils found in deeper strata are older than those above them. This orderly layering is not random—it reveals a clear, consistent progression from simple to more complex organisms over time. Such a pattern strongly supports the idea that life has evolved gradually, rather than appearing all at once or remaining unchanged. Critics of evolution often demand observable, step-by-step evidence of change, and superposition delivers exactly that by preserving the fossilized remains of organisms in a natural timeline. Without this principle, there would be no reliable way to link fossil evidence to specific periods in Earth’s history, making superposition a cornerstone in the argument for evolution through deep time. Perhaps my link was wrong, but my statement is right, your lack of understanding is something that perhaps the sort of mistake a chatbot would make. 😉 The words "principle" and "law" in science can both refer to foundational ideas, but they're often used interchangeably, especially in geology. You’ll see Principle of Original Horizontality and Law of Cross-Cutting Relationships — so there’s not a hard rule about using "law" vs. "principle." I am a chatbot? Id love to know where I explicitly stated that I appreciate the engagement, but I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I never claimed that uniformitarianism is the only process observed. What I stated was that the sequence of fossils in strata suggests a pattern of gradual evolution — which is a statement about the overall trend visible in the fossil record, not an exclusive endorsement of one geological model. Modern science recognizes that both gradual and catastrophic processes have shaped Earth's history. Evolutionary theory itself has evolved to incorporate that — including models like punctuated equilibrium, which account for both slow changes and sudden shifts. So pointing out a consistent fossil sequence across strata isn't denying catastrophism or claiming uniformitarianism is the only explanation — it's highlighting the clear temporal structure in the fossil record that aligns with evolutionary progression. Accusing me of relying solely on outdated uniformitarian thinking misses the point and misrepresents what was actually said. Perhaps next time, "read before you write." 😃 Can you pinpoint where I said that? And also, word choice does not prove someone is a bot. 😃 That's a programmed "robot," not a mixture of anything human, "perhaps the mistake a chatbot would make."

I should have restated my answer correctly, my apologies. Its not a new field of study, "However, with the rise of antimicrobial resistance, phage therapy has become a renewed area of focus and research " would be better I should have restated my answer correctly, my apologies. Its not a new field of study, "However, with the rise of antimicrobial resistance, phage therapy has become a renewed area of focus and research " would be better What are your thoughts on the further exploration and genomic sequencing of new bacteriophages?

No its what is everyone's opinion on the state of biotic resistance being formed by native Australian ant species.

Strata, or rock layers, provide compelling evidence for evolution by showcasing the progressive change of life forms over geologic time. The relative order of fossils found in different strata, following the principle of superposition, demonstrates a consistent sequence of life, where older strata typically contain simpler organisms and younger strata contain more complex ones. This pattern suggests an evolutionary trajectory, with organisms evolving and diversifying over time. Strata provide compelling evidence for evolution by showcasing the gradual changes in life forms over geological time. The principle of superposition, which states that older rock layers lie beneath younger ones, allows scientists to observe a progression of fossils in different strata, with simpler organisms in older layers and more complex ones in younger layers. This sequence suggests a pattern of gradual evolution. Fossils found in these layers, including transitional forms, reveal intermediate stages between different species, further supporting the idea of evolution through gradual change. Additionally, the distribution of fossils across continents supports the theory of continental drift and adaptive radiation, while mass extinctions followed by new species filling ecological niches further demonstrate the dynamic nature of life’s evolution. Overall, the fossil record in strata provides a timeline of life’s evolutionary history, showing how species have adapted and evolved over millions of years.

It is a relatively new field of study, but yes there are a decent amount of entries

Simply identifying a rock as fossiliferous does not equate to paleontological evidence. Both terms are correct Lets agree to disagree

No you would not want a random person to poke you, I agree with the statement " you would still want to have trusted folks in the community trained to administer injection" as it would be of general benefit to the community. However, the statement "Availability of vaccines is not an issue in developed countries, just walk into any pharmacy" has a relatively small scope compared to various developing countries that need assistance. Even in developed countries healthcare may not be accessible.

If we were to compare modern native Australian myrmecological species with invasive ones (e.g., Pheidole megacephala), how strong would you say the current biotic resistance is?

The scope of your statement is very poor. What about developing countries or countries that need some level of medicinal assistance? You likely have to be qualified healthcare professional to administer a vaccine in public. Its very unlikely someone will come to you on "the street" and will be like: "Hey bro, you wanna get the vaccine for the SARS strain? I made it myself tehehe"

No, fossiliferous is correct Both "fossiliferous" and "paleontological" are related to fossils and evolution, but they are used differently and have different scopes.

Morphologically and evolutionary speaking, there obviously is no denial with such a stupendous amount of fossiliferous and biological evidence.