swansont

How in the world do any of those quotes suggest that anyone thought figuring out abiogenesis would be simple? (The only one that might lean in that direction is from Popper, who was not a biologist.) You might be able to get a little traction if you dig for quotes from before DNA was discovered, in the realization of just how difficult the difficult problem was. That’s not really accurate. The limitation is on superluminal information transfer. Information transfer is part of teleportation, which uses entanglement. So it’s involved. That said, I’ve never seen a clear explanation of the role of entanglement in biology in articles that tout it (but those are pop-sci articles that often get entanglement details wrong anyway)

Anticipated by whom? I’d like to know who thought it would be simple.

I knew about $trump, and $melania had already wafted its way to my nostrils.

How long until his leavings are sold or auctioned to doting fans? A new currency called $hitcoin

Not really. You have to include the statement it’s denying, which was that quantum biology being considered an alternative to abiogenesis. There’s really only one way to negate a statement if the form “A is B” Chemistry includes quantum effects - a degree in chemistry would include a course on physical chemistry, which includes QM. Quantum chemistry is a branch of p-chem. Quantum effects were never excluded. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry No part of science would be an alternative to abiogenesis. Since we don’t actually know the process, how can anything be an alternative? If it’s correct, it would simply be the explanation.

It’s not being suggested as an alternative to abiogenesis. I don’t know what part of this you misunderstand. Perhaps you could explain - in your own words - what you think abiogenesis is, and how quantum biology would be an alternative to it.

No, that’s not the idea.

! Moderator Note We expect posts to be made in good faith. If you can’t do that, we’d prefer you not post here at all.

! Moderator Note You’ve been here long enough to know the rules about posting videos. No text summary? No video.

Who had Vivek Ramaswamy? Will not be a part of the “department” of government efficiency

Argument by quote-mining is intellectually lazy. Admitting you spend lots of time assembling your posts is an admission of inefficiency rather than assuring quality. “I worked on this a long time” is one of the items in crackpot bingo (i.e. it’s a red flag in discussions) because people who peddle such nonsense think it matters, rather than the result. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority People aren’t right just because they say something, and it is especially dangerous to assume they’re right outside their area of expertise. It’s also important to discern whether they are stating an opinion, which is not a claim that something is objectively true.

! Moderator Note Shall we apply game theory to “Where should I post my thread?” to see if we can improve your posting choices. No apparent repercussions if you just lazily post it in the lounge, but what if there were? Like, say, angering the moderators?

Not this kind of argument. It’s fallacious, and perhaps worse, it’s lazy. You can’t make the case yourself, so you find others who said something that has a keyword or two in it, but if you don’t know the circumstances of their statement you don’t really know what point they were making. I’ve seen quotes pulled out of context that meant the opposite of what the poster implied. So color me unimpressed by quote-mining. If you’ve got an argument, learn the details yourself and make it.

! Moderator Note That’s not how it works. Rule 2.2 still applies - respect copyright protections

There are a number of problems here (in addition to the OP talking about individuals rather than country-level issues) There’s an underlying implication that population should continue to increase or remain constant. Why? There are a lot of things that would get better if the world population dropped. Looking at the birth rates and simultaneously assuming they are not changeable and must be changed points to some cognitive dissonance. Birthrates below 2 does not imply some terminal condition. “Self-eradication” is hyperbole. If birthrates are at 90% of replacement level it will take ~7 generations for the population to drop below 50% of the current value. That’s 150-200 years. It’s not imminent. Plenty of stuff is going to happen in that time that will impact the situation. And it would be much longer before there were any genetic bottleneck issues. The graphs shown above include extrapolations, which must be based on assumptions. None of that is a certainty, and there’s plenty of time to adjust the conditions that would support a sustainable birthrate. Emigration/immigration happens, so a notion that any one country or region must have replacement-level birth rates has racist/ethnic echoes to it.

Scientists say a lot of things, and it’s not always about science. Argument by quotation is pretty lame, as I think I’ve mentioned before (it’s the argument from authority fallacy) and it’s even worse when there’s no context or even an actual quote.

Out of ~155 million votes, it would be small, but since he won by less than half of that, it's thin. Compared with the margin of recent elections it’s quite thin. Not as thin as 2016, which was negative, or Bush in 2000, but smaller than other elections dating back to Carter in 1976, when Carter got only slightly more than half of the votes that Trump did (40.8 million vs 77.3) That says a lot about how the electoral college is structured. Biden got 306 four years ago, and there were no shouts about a mandate. Obama got 365 in 2008, and we didn’t get the mandate nonsense we’re getting now. Did Kamala run on an “anti-gun” platform, or is that some more “alternative” truth?

Gravity is proportional to mass, but the acceleration you feel depends on the mass of the nearby celestial body, not your own.

It might be more instructive to think of power you’d be throwing away. If a sub-optimal angle reduced your power by, say, 10%, do you want to lose 10% of a small number, or a big number?

Well that’s not very clear. Telling how you don’t judge isn’t very illuminating, and admitting you violate a religious teaching? That can’t go over well with the eye in the sky.

Do you judge others? How does that comport with your religious text?

Noon is when the Intensity is the highest, so it makes sense to maximize the geometric efficiency for a fixed panel for the part of the day when you get the most sun. You’re only tilting based on angle above horizon at noon, not on the orthogonal direction, and the sun passes through more atmosphere near sunrise and sunset, which scatter blue light more efficiently (i.e.the light actually used by the panels) Do you want to optimize for when you’re getting 50 W/m^2 or when you’re getting 250 W/m^2?

To expand on Phi’s answer https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/heart-muscle-tired “the heart is made of cardiac muscle, consisting of special cells called cardiomyocytes.Unlike other muscle cells in the body, cardiomyocytes are highly resistant to fatigue. cardiomyocytes are primarily powered by mitochondria (the energy house of the cell), similar to your other muscles. However, cardiomyocytes have as much as10 timesthe density of mitochondria, skyrocketing their energy output.”

Why does that matter? It’s not the matter under discussion. The point is that you don’t have to be judged by a supreme being. If you ask about my criteria, do you question yours? There are other religions out there, with other gods. Did you shop around? Are you like so many religious folks, who pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow (e.g. a-la-carte Christians) and somehow justify ignoring other parts of religious doctrine? But you are acting like a troll. Sealioning. Textbook example. And here we are discussing belief in gods. How do you tell if you have uncovered reality? Is there a way to test it? If science is trying to understand reality, why are there so many parts of physics just mathematical constructs, that are identified as not being real?

To make yourself a better person. That this does not occur to you means it’s unlikely you would understand what motivates others who aren’t like you. But they/we exist.