Haagel @ Haagel @lemmings.world

Posts

0

Comments

280

Joined

2 yr. ago

Money can't buy happiness but it can buy your preferred form of misery.

I guess that sense of agency over our suffering is a kind of happiness.

I don't think that Venter is suggesting intelligent design. He's claiming, as a result of his research, that it's not effective to assume simple explanations for genomics and especially for cellular biology.

Every technological improvement in the methods of research has revealed more complexity in organisms and so it behooves us to suspend dogmatic approaches to the genome. That's the subject of the book discussed in the article.

Craig Venter is very controversial and his statements are provocative. I'm not qualified to critique the science in this field. But I'd recommend you to take a look at the work his team is doing with synthetic chromosomes and engineered cells.

I'm not an expert on the subject. I can only repeat what Venter said: "the only junk DNA is in my colleagues brains". He claims that all DNA has function and that it should not be referred to as junk just because we don't know the function yet.

He talks about at intervals in this interview.

Craig Venter, the infamous head of the Human Genome Project and who created the first "synthetic" cell, has been saying this stuff for years. It's remarkable how ahead of the times he is, perhaps because he's not beholden to an academic institution.

He claims that a "tree of life" is fallacious, that there is no junk DNA, and that the bare minimum genes necessary for a living cell still can't be determined even after decades of research.

I hope that the authors of the new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis will admit the deficiency of outdated assumptions and reject dogmatic approaches to the theory, as implied by the author of the book reviewed in this article.

Try kitchari. I'm not Indian but I got a taste of this hearty stew and now I eat it all the time. It's got complete proteins and you can make it with a variety of vegetables that always have anyway.

🤞🏼

Every five years the date of the earliest homo sapiens is pushed back five thousand years. They'll be saying that homo sapiens were writing novels in 200,000 BC by the time I die.

I think it's because the progressives don't have a unified front. It's hard to sell a potential "better tomorrow". It's a lot easier to get upset about things that are happening right now. That seems to be the essence of the conservative platform.

Yeah but the poor IDF really need US taxpayers help! Heaven forbid it turns into a fair fight! /s

Seriously, though. Hamas is so ridiculously outgunned that I can't imagine any good reason to continue supplying weapons to IDF. If they can't get the job done with what arms have been given then maybe they're not really trying to get the job done at all.

Almost anything can be addictive, but some things are explicitly designed to be addictive. I don't think that young kids are capable of regulating their gaming addiction. Someone needs to intervene, most likely the parents.

OK. Point taken. 👍🏼

What is "thread-sitting"?

It is laughable, especially coming from someone making homage to Neils Bohr. Did he not choose to lend assistance to the building of the bomb? Of course he advocated for peace after the fact...

I believe that all people should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their beliefs. You probably believe that nuclear science justifies the nuclear proliferation. I don't.

I define extremism as violence upon others. Both secularists and religionists are capable and culpable.

Lol. I'm sure it's a coincidence that the guy whose username is i_have_no_enemies is really good at making a lot of enemies.

...just like Israel.

Therefore adherents of a religion are also not implicit in extremism, right? Pretty sure that's the original point of the meme...

It seems that we're mostly in agreement that it's the broad category of humans who are culpable. Whether secular or sectarian, humans continuously harm others, intentionally or not.

What's wrong with using the term Darwinism? I think it's a good umbrella category to include the varieties of evolution theory such Lamarckism, neo-darwinian evolution, modern evolutionary synthesis and extended evolutionary synthesis. What term do the people who aren't "nut jobs" use?

I've made some pretty decent claims about the universality of extremism. I'd love for you to point me to a community of humans who haven't done something extreme.

Alright, brother. Thank you for this conversation. I appreciate your perspective. 🙏🏼

I think you're moving the goalposts.

I'm actually claiming that Darwinism is extremist and that it is implicated by name in the murder of tens of millions of people.