aidan @ aidan @lemmy.world

Posts

21

Comments

1,970

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

You're thinking I'm saying something I'm not. And I think that was the case with your interpretation of the video too.

Nothing I've said here (or ever said in my life) is pro-intelligent design

He also repeats all of the bible thumper talking points around this subject, as if it’s a mystery nobody can explain and couldn’t have come to be without some kind of intelligent design at the helm.

He literally does not say that though, he says there's a lot of research into it and encourages people to read it.

This whole flagella thing was an exercise of goal post moving in the first place. The ID people kept pointing out weird things and missing links. Then when science explained exactly how that thing came to be, without ID involved, they just pointed to the next thing at one point ending up at flagella.

Yeah I agree, but I also think that you can't exactly blame someone else who was uninvolved with the initial argument for arguing a different thing at a different time. If one person criticizes a politician for not providing enough social services and another separate person complains about taxes that's not moving goal posts, those are just two different people.

There is a whole Wikipedia page talking about how flagella evolved and how it came to be.

Yes, but, did you read it? Its not exactly too resoundingly confident in any one theory.

And keep in mind all of this was thoroughly debunked back 20 years ago.

All of what? It is true that the flagella isn't unique if that's what you mean.

I’m not even sure there is research still being done on this, the research was done decades before, there is no mystery.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mmi.14658

Here's a relatively recent study that says basically what the wikipedia says:

Homing in on the T3SS, the exact evolutionary relation between injectisomes and flagella1 is debated. Phylogenetic analyses and functional arguments led to two models: (a) The evolution of modern flagella and injectisomes from a common ancestral protein export machinery (Gophna et al., 2003; Pallen and Gophna, 2007), or (b) The evolution of injectisomes from a flagellum-like ancestor (Abby and Rocha, 2012; Denise et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2000).

But it also says:

The T3SS is one of the most complex bacterial molecular machines, incorporating one to over a hundred copies of more than 15 different proteins into a multi-MDa transmembrane complex (Table 1). The system, especially the flagellum, has, therefore often been quoted as an example for “irreducible complexity,” based on the argument that the evolution of such a complex system with no beneficial intermediates would be exceedingly unlikely. However, it is now clear that, far from having evolved as independent entities, many secretion systems share components between each other and with other cellular machineries (Egelman, 2010; Pallen and Gophna, 2007).

I ofc am just a layman reading this, I agree it seems better understood that how I interpreted what he was saying, but it also doesn't seem nearly as well understood as you're saying.

I feel like to get a lot of young people into it, it doesn't just need pay, but also some of the comforts of other jobs. As in: if I can work from home vs going into a workshop from 9-5 5 days a week, even if I'd be paid more I'd prefer to work from home. Other jobs can offer perks like that, but for a lot of manufacturing jobs that's clearly not an option- so many reduced working hours/days would work. But I think when there's already a shortage on employees, companies don't want to also cut down on the hours they're working.

I pretty strongly disagree with that characterization, at least for the manufacturing videos I watched, that I do have experience in. I appreciate how deferential and humble he is to people in his videos even if they're showing a job that is relatively unremarkable to most people.

I also think

poorly educated and easily impressed people from rural America.

is a pretty mean spirited and stereotype-based thing to say.

He literally says that there's a lot of good research being done trying to find the evolutionary mechanism. Nowhere that I saw at least did he push creationism, other than mentioning that the concept exists, and that he believes in god.

Fundamentally isn't any religious belief in an omnipotent/world creating god creationist? I think the evidence trying to "prove" intelligent design is pretty weak, but the thing about essentially all religious belief is that its not exactly falsifiable. The argument can basically be as simple as "yes that evolved but god created everything in the world so it would evolve that way" or "no it didn't evolve, god created the world 5000 years ago, he just also made stuff that to any observer would appear older. he did that to intentionally obfuscate the truth so you must have faith"

When did he do that?

And, if someone has a sincerely held moral belief and they honestly believe other people's lives would be made better if they heard it, then how is is not morally good from their perspective?

This is just being poor

Yea I don't disagree thats the case with most people, but some will try to twist it no matter what you said, to conform to their current world view.

I don't agree with that

You're saying you would, I explained why others might not feel the same way, and still genuinely oppose them

And you'll be called an incel when you point out the double standard

I argue with people for a lot of reasons. I an saying no one has an inherent obligation to argue with anyone.

Because that's me being an argumentative person, I don't think someone has an obligation to, to prove to external observers they're not a nazi. That's also not their job.

We already talked about this

Having a “fun” conversation with a nazi

Next paragraph explains

But whatever, I just don’t care - you are not beholden to be kind to someone just because they are multifaceted and complete humans. Humans can be evil, and if even one of those “facets” is murdering or a desire for genocide, I have every right to disagree with that. I do not owe anyone my time, or my patience.

I agree, you don't have to. But just because you choose not to, doesn't make me a nazi if I choose to. That was what this was about, it was never about forcing you.

Funny if you’re racist.

Again they have the capacity to say stuff outside that.

And again, I do not have to wade through a mile of shit and corpses just because there might be a slice of cake at the end. I am allowed to say “no, fuck off”.

And again where did I try to change your mind on that?

Like I already said: when you said you’d prefer a “fun” nazi to someone else “boring”, and implied by you taking issue with me saying you should either argue or leave. This implies you’d prefer to stay and not argue. And if you’re not arguing with them or leaving, what are you doing? Standing completely still with no words or body language of your own? No, you’re engaging in the conversation.

You understand that nazis talk about a weather too? I would do the same as I do with everyone. Make it clear I disagree with what I disagree with, but also have the capacity to talk about other stuff.

Well it is your responsibility in some ways to not intentionally mistreat others. But I agree your job isn't to talk to racists. I never tried to tell you it was. I did tell you someone can talk to racists without being a racist themselves though.

You understand this policy as of now is only targeting Harvard. The article is about Harvard, don't pre-cope imo

I have massive problems with prisons and by extension policing. I think prisons are the some of the most cruel institutions on Earth. But I am kind of disappointed that that community isn't really proposing anything it feels like. Prisons are cruel and need reform, you don't need to convince me there. The problem is I do think there is a legitimate need for something to protect people, and to separate people who are a serious risk to others.

They say:

creating lasting alternatives to punishment and imprisonment.

But what?

One idea I think, that is a small reform but I think would actually be very valuable in increasing prisoners quality of life: increased internet access. I think the isolation, and the feeling of being trapped within the prison culture, is very harmful. It would also be easier to bring abuse to public attention.

Why are you arguing with me, then, when all I said was that you shouldn’t accept being in the presence of their beliefs?

Okay, so you agree you can accept a person as a human and a friend without accepting their beliefs? Because that's what I'm saying

And no, accepting a belief means not challenging it, implicitly treating it as normal.

I wouldn't really agree with that only because its just not your job. You don't have a responsibility with burdening yourself with constantly correcting others.