Firing nurses who don't want to risk their lives after seeing the vaxxed die is leading to nurse shortages
invite response
2021 Aug 20, 6:30pm 10,287 views 156 comments
by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
https://voxday.net/2021/08/20/a-severe-shortage/
« First « Previous Comments 94 - 133 of 156 Next » Last » Search these comments
94
AmericanKulak
2021 Oct 31, 11:57pm
AmericanKulak
2021 Oct 31, 11:57pm
richwicks says
Chips are intelligently designed, however. Simulated annealing is the end result of millennium of directed human intelligence.
The Boltzmann Constant is another one of those exceptionally "lucky" fine-tuned constants. And expressed by math, another long and complex chain of knowledge due to intelligent actors. Monte Carlo/Markov Chains came about after 6 million years of Hominids efforts.
If one threw around a bunch of plane parts, the argument goes, eventually - with billions of years in time - one would get a functional plane, once.
However, who made the plane parts? How could a natural environment produce turbines and glass cockpits? Why is it when fit together properly, a plane can be flown? But in most/all other of the countless configurations 1000s of parts could have, not very useful.
When we see data so well organized, it generally has a Creator. Crystal lattices are nothing compared to the variations of DNA in terms of multilayering, omnidirectionality, reproduction and variance, etc.
You'd change your tune real quick when you see how a chip gets routed. It's done through what is called simulated annealing.
Chips are intelligently designed, however. Simulated annealing is the end result of millennium of directed human intelligence.
The Boltzmann Constant is another one of those exceptionally "lucky" fine-tuned constants. And expressed by math, another long and complex chain of knowledge due to intelligent actors. Monte Carlo/Markov Chains came about after 6 million years of Hominids efforts.
If one threw around a bunch of plane parts, the argument goes, eventually - with billions of years in time - one would get a functional plane, once.
However, who made the plane parts? How could a natural environment produce turbines and glass cockpits? Why is it when fit together properly, a plane can be flown? But in most/all other of the countless configurations 1000s of parts could have, not very useful.
When we see data so well organized, it generally has a Creator. Crystal lattices are nothing compared to the variations of DNA in terms of multilayering, omnidirectionality, reproduction and variance, etc.
95
richwicks
2021 Nov 1, 12:29am
richwicks
2021 Nov 1, 12:29am
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
My point is from a simple set of rules, complexity can be created that far outstrips a human's ability to create the complexity through just randomness and selection over generations.
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
This is just the anthropic principle. We really don't know what "universal constants" are dependent upon themselves. There might be fundamentally a single universal constant, and all the others can be derived from it.
If we lived in a universe that couldn't support out existence, we couldn't contemplate it.
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
That's NOT the argument and you damned well know it. Some organism develops the ability to float or to glide, like a squirrel. It gives them a slight survival advantage and in 30 million years time, squirrels might be flying around in the sky because the genetics not only proliferates but becomes more common in successive generations to expand this ability.
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
This is making an assumption of "who". Who did X? The correct question is WHAT caused X to happen?
When you ask "who" you end up with the same stalemate an atheist does - who created god? What caused our creator to be created if indeed there is a creator?
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
30 years ago people in Silicon Valley were FULLY CONVINCED we'd end up with the singularity at some point, and we still may. If an artificial intellect can be created, it will be created. If the intellect is as smart and as creative as the people that created it (whatever smart and creative might mean) it will augment itself. It will gain function and creativity, and will soon outstrip its creators, becoming fundamentally impossible to understand in either its motivations or even morality.
It might, for example, just leave this Earth, after all, it's filled with toxins that degrade it - if it's silicon. It might recreate itself biologically. It will only need energy and might decide it's best if it settles on the moon. It won't have to compete against us - its only requirement would be energy. It wouldn't need to have a nice home, or a huge plot of land and I doubt it would want one. It wouldn't desire "comfort", it could program itself to experience that.
We would be its creator, but at the same time, FAR inferior to it in terms of intellect, creativity, maybe even morality. It could, conceivably, turn our society into one of treasured pets - grateful for its existence, and for all intensive purposes loving and kind. We cannot predict it.
DNA, in my opinion, is just a compression algorithm. In compression, you take common sequences that are reused in the file, and reduce it to the least number of bits, when you expand the file, that sequence is used over and over for reference, sometimes to do entirely different things - maybe in one section is audio data, in another its code, in another, its data. DNA does the same thing, a gene sequence can be expressed MULTIPLE times in entirely different ways.
Life is too complicated for us to figure out, but perhaps not for a machine. Time will tell.
Chips are intelligently designed, however. Simulated annealing is the end result of millennium of directed human intelligence.
My point is from a simple set of rules, complexity can be created that far outstrips a human's ability to create the complexity through just randomness and selection over generations.
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
The Boltzmann Constant is another one of those exceptionally "lucky" fine-tuned constants. And expressed by math, another long and complex chain of knowledge due to intelligent actors.
This is just the anthropic principle. We really don't know what "universal constants" are dependent upon themselves. There might be fundamentally a single universal constant, and all the others can be derived from it.
If we lived in a universe that couldn't support out existence, we couldn't contemplate it.
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
If one threw around a bunch of plane parts, the argument goes, eventually - with billions of years in time - one would get a functional plane, once.
That's NOT the argument and you damned well know it. Some organism develops the ability to float or to glide, like a squirrel. It gives them a slight survival advantage and in 30 million years time, squirrels might be flying around in the sky because the genetics not only proliferates but becomes more common in successive generations to expand this ability.
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
However, who made the plane parts? Why is it when fit together properly, a plane can be flown? But in most/all other of the countless configurations 1000s of parts could have, not very useful.
This is making an assumption of "who". Who did X? The correct question is WHAT caused X to happen?
When you ask "who" you end up with the same stalemate an atheist does - who created god? What caused our creator to be created if indeed there is a creator?
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
When we see data so well organized, it generally has a Creator. Crystal lattices are nothing compared to the variations of DNA in terms of multilayering, omnidirectionality, reproduction and variance, etc.
30 years ago people in Silicon Valley were FULLY CONVINCED we'd end up with the singularity at some point, and we still may. If an artificial intellect can be created, it will be created. If the intellect is as smart and as creative as the people that created it (whatever smart and creative might mean) it will augment itself. It will gain function and creativity, and will soon outstrip its creators, becoming fundamentally impossible to understand in either its motivations or even morality.
It might, for example, just leave this Earth, after all, it's filled with toxins that degrade it - if it's silicon. It might recreate itself biologically. It will only need energy and might decide it's best if it settles on the moon. It won't have to compete against us - its only requirement would be energy. It wouldn't need to have a nice home, or a huge plot of land and I doubt it would want one. It wouldn't desire "comfort", it could program itself to experience that.
We would be its creator, but at the same time, FAR inferior to it in terms of intellect, creativity, maybe even morality. It could, conceivably, turn our society into one of treasured pets - grateful for its existence, and for all intensive purposes loving and kind. We cannot predict it.
DNA, in my opinion, is just a compression algorithm. In compression, you take common sequences that are reused in the file, and reduce it to the least number of bits, when you expand the file, that sequence is used over and over for reference, sometimes to do entirely different things - maybe in one section is audio data, in another its code, in another, its data. DNA does the same thing, a gene sequence can be expressed MULTIPLE times in entirely different ways.
Life is too complicated for us to figure out, but perhaps not for a machine. Time will tell.
96
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 1, 9:07am
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 1, 9:07am
richwicks says
But not data. DNA is both complex and specific - it's data.
DNA is an error-correcting information storage and retrieval system.
The chances of that occurring naturally might happen - given untold billions of years - and then it would have to be self-replicating also, so now far less likely.
It was something of an argument back when it was believed there was 2-3B years between Earth Formation and First Life AND prior to DNA when the working hypothesis was self-ordering chemistry gradually becoming more complex over billions of year. Now that DNA and Life must have emerged within less than half a billion years, it's far less likely.
Where do entirely new forms arise within tiny spans of time?
richwicks says
It IS the argument. It goes back to the Monkeys typing and eventually coming up with Shakespeare. It presupposes the language, grammar, syntax all being used by all the monkeys (17th C. English too, not 10th Century or Modern) as well as typewriters for the monkeys to use. The monkeys can't just be slapping keys, they have to have the keys innate to the typewriter - not using a Georgian or 9th Century Arabic or Cantonese one.
The plane parts themselves are incredibly complex and show signs of complex, organized, specific design as well, hence the 2nd analogy.
Given 10 billion years, there's a tiny chance it might happen. Given a few hundred million, vanishingly small as to beggar belief.
The argument is not what DNA does after it exists, but how it incredibly specific, complex, organized, and precise coding system - with correct Chirality - it is and how it came to be.
The idea that life arose from spontaneous combinations of Chemicals gradually become more complex was destroyed by the discovery of DNA, because DNA itself is unbelievably complex even in the simplest, oldest form and requires so much time and chances the odds of it happening are infintesimal, particularly in the now known very limited timeframe of just a few hundred million years rather than the billions assumed previously.
Just as the Big Bang ruined the idea that the Universe was Eternal and in a Steady State.
Lossless Compression has mid 20th Century creators. If we see lossless compression, then comparing it to what we know, we should assume a Creator.
My point is from a simple set of rules, complexity can be created that far outstrips a human's ability to create the complexity through just randomness and selection over generations.
But not data. DNA is both complex and specific - it's data.
DNA is an error-correcting information storage and retrieval system.
The chances of that occurring naturally might happen - given untold billions of years - and then it would have to be self-replicating also, so now far less likely.
It was something of an argument back when it was believed there was 2-3B years between Earth Formation and First Life AND prior to DNA when the working hypothesis was self-ordering chemistry gradually becoming more complex over billions of year. Now that DNA and Life must have emerged within less than half a billion years, it's far less likely.
Where do entirely new forms arise within tiny spans of time?
richwicks says
That's NOT the argument and you damned well know it. Some organism develops the ability to float or to glide, like a squirrel. It gives them a slight survival advantage and in 30 million years time, squirrels might be flying around in the sky because the genetics not only proliferates but becomes more common in successive generations to expand this ability.
It IS the argument. It goes back to the Monkeys typing and eventually coming up with Shakespeare. It presupposes the language, grammar, syntax all being used by all the monkeys (17th C. English too, not 10th Century or Modern) as well as typewriters for the monkeys to use. The monkeys can't just be slapping keys, they have to have the keys innate to the typewriter - not using a Georgian or 9th Century Arabic or Cantonese one.
The plane parts themselves are incredibly complex and show signs of complex, organized, specific design as well, hence the 2nd analogy.
Given 10 billion years, there's a tiny chance it might happen. Given a few hundred million, vanishingly small as to beggar belief.
The argument is not what DNA does after it exists, but how it incredibly specific, complex, organized, and precise coding system - with correct Chirality - it is and how it came to be.
The idea that life arose from spontaneous combinations of Chemicals gradually become more complex was destroyed by the discovery of DNA, because DNA itself is unbelievably complex even in the simplest, oldest form and requires so much time and chances the odds of it happening are infintesimal, particularly in the now known very limited timeframe of just a few hundred million years rather than the billions assumed previously.
Just as the Big Bang ruined the idea that the Universe was Eternal and in a Steady State.
Lossless Compression has mid 20th Century creators. If we see lossless compression, then comparing it to what we know, we should assume a Creator.
97
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 1, 9:37am
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 1, 9:37am
richwicks says
We weren't around to contemplate Asteroid Impacts millions of years ago either, or for the formation of the solar system, but the same materialists who would never use that argument for geology apply it to the universe and origin of life questions?
richwicks says
WHAT or WHO. There is no reason to assume a "What", at least as some kind of law or force, either.
For Francis Crick, DNA discoverer, he has a WHO: Panspermia by Aliens.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0019103573901103
If we lived in a universe that couldn't support out existence, we couldn't contemplate it.
We weren't around to contemplate Asteroid Impacts millions of years ago either, or for the formation of the solar system, but the same materialists who would never use that argument for geology apply it to the universe and origin of life questions?
richwicks says
This is making an assumption of "who". Who did X? The correct question is WHAT caused X to happen?
WHAT or WHO. There is no reason to assume a "What", at least as some kind of law or force, either.
For Francis Crick, DNA discoverer, he has a WHO: Panspermia by Aliens.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0019103573901103
98
Patrick
2021 Nov 1, 10:52pm
Patrick
2021 Nov 1, 10:52pm
Some life is pretty damn tough and could survive in space, like tardigrades, or even just mold spores. I think it's possible that spores of some kind just drifted down to earth. Maybe more are arriving all the time.
99
HeadSet
2021 Nov 2, 6:33am
HeadSet
2021 Nov 2, 6:33am
Patrick says
It that is true, then we will find such life on the other planets/moons as well. When I was a kid I predicted that water would be found on the other planets/moons. My reasoning was that water got to Earth via comets, so comet impacts would deliver water on the other bodies as well.
Some life is pretty damn tough and could survive in space, like tardigrades, or even just mold spores. I think it's possible that spores of some kind just drifted down to earth. Maybe more are arriving all the time.
It that is true, then we will find such life on the other planets/moons as well. When I was a kid I predicted that water would be found on the other planets/moons. My reasoning was that water got to Earth via comets, so comet impacts would deliver water on the other bodies as well.
100
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 2, 10:39am
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 2, 10:39am
Shaman says
THe original experiment included both flawed assumptions and premises, and probably some lab sloppiness and contamination. Later experiments "debunked" the original experiment when a corrected starting atmosphere didn't result in "brown goo" or complex molecules. Still later experimentation found the simulation was too simplistic and allowed the mixture to form compounds and PH levels that quickly destroyed any more complex molecules that formed. Adding iron minerals IIRC didn't replicate the "brown soup" but DID result in amino acids forming in the "corrected" experimental atmosphere.
The ORIGINAL incarnation of the Miller-Urey experiment was debunked, but further development of it has NOT debunked the notion of complex molecules "spontaneously" forming from simple elements. The fact that the experiment "only" produced simple amino acids on a scale of DAYS doesn't debunk evolution on a time scale of Sagans of years. (Unit meaning "MILLions and BILLions!")
Automan Empire saysLook at the Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950s.
That was junk science proving absolutely nothing. In fact it’s been repeatedly debunked.
THe original experiment included both flawed assumptions and premises, and probably some lab sloppiness and contamination. Later experiments "debunked" the original experiment when a corrected starting atmosphere didn't result in "brown goo" or complex molecules. Still later experimentation found the simulation was too simplistic and allowed the mixture to form compounds and PH levels that quickly destroyed any more complex molecules that formed. Adding iron minerals IIRC didn't replicate the "brown soup" but DID result in amino acids forming in the "corrected" experimental atmosphere.
The ORIGINAL incarnation of the Miller-Urey experiment was debunked, but further development of it has NOT debunked the notion of complex molecules "spontaneously" forming from simple elements. The fact that the experiment "only" produced simple amino acids on a scale of DAYS doesn't debunk evolution on a time scale of Sagans of years. (Unit meaning "MILLions and BILLions!")
101
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 2, 10:42am
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 2, 10:42am
H2O is pretty common, though mostly frozen of course.
Ice Worlds seem to be extremely common, if our solar system is in any way typical. Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Mimas, Callisto, Miranda... and a bunch of dwarf planets...
Ice Worlds seem to be extremely common, if our solar system is in any way typical. Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Mimas, Callisto, Miranda... and a bunch of dwarf planets...
102
richwicks
2021 Nov 2, 11:10am
richwicks
2021 Nov 2, 11:10am
Shaman says
The Miller-Urey experiment may not have replicated the early conditions of Earth - but it demonstrated how easy it is to make amino acids and self replicating, um, "things". It's a stretch to call them "life".
Automan Empire saysLook at the Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950s.
That was junk science proving absolutely nothing. In fact it’s been repeatedly debunked.
The Miller-Urey experiment may not have replicated the early conditions of Earth - but it demonstrated how easy it is to make amino acids and self replicating, um, "things". It's a stretch to call them "life".
103
Shaman
2021 Nov 2, 11:23am
Shaman
2021 Nov 2, 11:23am
Look, any organic chemist can create the conditions for “complex” chemicals to be formed. But the proteins involved in DNA or even RNA are on the order of 30,000 to 60,000 molecules big! All formed in a “just so” way that lets the molecule fold in special way that gives it its structure and enables its function. And if you start with non-living carbon-based strata like oil or plastic, you get molecules that fold in a mirror image of a carbon-based molecule that’s been formed by a living organism. Those will NOT be compatible with organic life.
For even a single 35,000 atom molecule of a base DNA pair to be spontaneously “made” would be extremely unlikely, perhaps one in a billion. For it to acquire other similarly formed base pairs, and then the cellular machinery that allows it to replicate and form proteins is unlikely to have happened in 10 billion years. Then to have all those things plus a million other biological processes come together in a way that made self-replicating “life” would require more time than the heat death of our universe and more real estate than it encompasses. We are talking about a statistical impossibility. You’d be far more likely to get a brand new Mercedes Benz produced from an explosion at an auto parts store than to get even the most basic unit of life produced by an at-random mechanism.
Life is nanotechnology. We don’t look at a wristwatch and ponder the evolutionary road that iron and copper and tin could have taken to arrive at this small mechanical wonder. A single cell is light years more complex than a watch.
This is simple mathematics, folks. Life is irreducible complex. Darwin’s Black Box of the basics of Life can’t explain that which it can’t comprehend. And all the hand-waving in the world around this subject only underscores how little we know.
For even a single 35,000 atom molecule of a base DNA pair to be spontaneously “made” would be extremely unlikely, perhaps one in a billion. For it to acquire other similarly formed base pairs, and then the cellular machinery that allows it to replicate and form proteins is unlikely to have happened in 10 billion years. Then to have all those things plus a million other biological processes come together in a way that made self-replicating “life” would require more time than the heat death of our universe and more real estate than it encompasses. We are talking about a statistical impossibility. You’d be far more likely to get a brand new Mercedes Benz produced from an explosion at an auto parts store than to get even the most basic unit of life produced by an at-random mechanism.
Life is nanotechnology. We don’t look at a wristwatch and ponder the evolutionary road that iron and copper and tin could have taken to arrive at this small mechanical wonder. A single cell is light years more complex than a watch.
This is simple mathematics, folks. Life is irreducible complex. Darwin’s Black Box of the basics of Life can’t explain that which it can’t comprehend. And all the hand-waving in the world around this subject only underscores how little we know.
104
richwicks
2021 Nov 2, 11:40am
richwicks
2021 Nov 2, 11:40am
Shaman says
Michael Behe has been RESOUNDINGLY debunked multiple times.
Look, we don't have any idea how life began and may never have any idea how it began, we may be very wrong about fossil records, laughably wrong, we we know we absolute certainty that evolution happens. There's no question about it.
Saying "I can't figure out how this could come about" is just a statement of ignorance. Maybe NOBODY can understand it but we cannot ignore observation.
Here's an interesting thing to do - compare the skeleton of a human being to any other mammal and you'll find they have the basic same skeletal structure, but bones are longer or shorter. Even fingers.
A billion years is a really long time.
This is simple mathematics, folks. Life is irreducible complex.
Michael Behe has been RESOUNDINGLY debunked multiple times.
Look, we don't have any idea how life began and may never have any idea how it began, we may be very wrong about fossil records, laughably wrong, we we know we absolute certainty that evolution happens. There's no question about it.
Saying "I can't figure out how this could come about" is just a statement of ignorance. Maybe NOBODY can understand it but we cannot ignore observation.
Here's an interesting thing to do - compare the skeleton of a human being to any other mammal and you'll find they have the basic same skeletal structure, but bones are longer or shorter. Even fingers.
A billion years is a really long time.
105
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 2, 11:59am
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 2, 11:59am
Shaman says
This reminds me of "debates" with creationists who heard "birds evolved from reptiles", and thus assume people who believe in evolution believe "A lizard woke up one day and decided, "Hey! Imma grow feathers and FLY!"
It's like you're looking at the finished outcome of billions of years of evolution in a snapshot of how-it-sits-today, can't imagine ALL the incremental steps and evolutionary blind alleys between primordial soup and now, and dismiss it as "Too complicated to have arisen spontaneously!"
Fully formed DNA base pairs didn't need to appear by immaculate conception first, in order for the first "life" to arise.
Edit: We should make a breakout "origins of life" thread, I miss talking about the nurses getting fired.
For even a single 35,000 atom molecule of a base DNA pair to be spontaneously “made” would be extremely unlikely, perhaps one in a billion. For it to acquire other similarly formed base pairs, and then the cellular machinery that allows it to replicate and form proteins is unlikely to have happened in 10 billion years.
This reminds me of "debates" with creationists who heard "birds evolved from reptiles", and thus assume people who believe in evolution believe "A lizard woke up one day and decided, "Hey! Imma grow feathers and FLY!"
It's like you're looking at the finished outcome of billions of years of evolution in a snapshot of how-it-sits-today, can't imagine ALL the incremental steps and evolutionary blind alleys between primordial soup and now, and dismiss it as "Too complicated to have arisen spontaneously!"
Fully formed DNA base pairs didn't need to appear by immaculate conception first, in order for the first "life" to arise.
Edit: We should make a breakout "origins of life" thread, I miss talking about the nurses getting fired.
106
HeadSet
2021 Nov 2, 12:19pm
HeadSet
2021 Nov 2, 12:19pm
richwicks says
Compare the human anatomy with that of a frog. Same skeletal, muscular, and nerve layout. Even the digestive system is similar.
Here's an interesting thing to do - compare the skeleton of a human being to any other mammal
Compare the human anatomy with that of a frog. Same skeletal, muscular, and nerve layout. Even the digestive system is similar.
107
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 2, 1:37pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 2, 1:37pm
HeadSet says
Later, compare the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the horse and the giraffe.
Compare the human anatomy with that of a frog.
Later, compare the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the horse and the giraffe.
108
Shaman
2021 Nov 2, 3:10pm
Shaman
2021 Nov 2, 3:10pm
Automan Empire says
Actually what I was saying is the very smallest least complicated example of life we know about is irreducibly complex. I’m not debating about how life forms can evolve and change over millennia and millions of years. I’m making the statement that NO MODEL currently understood by the most highly educated biologists in the world can adequately explain how the FIRST life came to be, in whatever form that took.
This is one of those questions that on the face of it looks simple: evolution. But the more that you learn on the subject, the thornier and more intractable the problem becomes, spiraling into fabulous complexity.
Have you heard of the Dunning-Krueger effect? Might wanna Google that one and learn how dangerous it is to assume you have even a basic understanding of a subject when in reality you know extremely little. I like to think that (after getting a degree in Biochemistry) I know just enough to understand the edges of this subject, and perhaps grasp the enormous range of particulars that encompasses it and which I don’t understand.
It's like you're looking at the finished outcome of billions of years of evolution in a snapshot of how-it-sits-today, can't imagine ALL the incremental steps and evolutionary blind alleys between primordial soup and now, and dismiss it as "Too complicated to have arisen spontaneously!"
Actually what I was saying is the very smallest least complicated example of life we know about is irreducibly complex. I’m not debating about how life forms can evolve and change over millennia and millions of years. I’m making the statement that NO MODEL currently understood by the most highly educated biologists in the world can adequately explain how the FIRST life came to be, in whatever form that took.
This is one of those questions that on the face of it looks simple: evolution. But the more that you learn on the subject, the thornier and more intractable the problem becomes, spiraling into fabulous complexity.
Have you heard of the Dunning-Krueger effect? Might wanna Google that one and learn how dangerous it is to assume you have even a basic understanding of a subject when in reality you know extremely little. I like to think that (after getting a degree in Biochemistry) I know just enough to understand the edges of this subject, and perhaps grasp the enormous range of particulars that encompasses it and which I don’t understand.
109
richwicks
2021 Nov 2, 3:19pm
richwicks
2021 Nov 2, 3:19pm
Shaman says
Yep, that's completely right.
But it did - somehow. It might have been a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of happening, but if the universe is infinite and time is infinite (it might be! There's good reason to believe the Big Bang is incorrect) - it's going to eventually happen. Maybe it was EXTREMELY unlikely, but it happened anyhow.
Shaman says
I'd be frankly surprised if anybody hasn't.
All you really learn is how much you don't fucking know. You can only claim to be an "expert" in a very very small section of any subject.
When I came to Silly Con Valley 20 years ago, it was pretty much accepted as inevitable that we'd have created a thinking, creative, independent machine entity in time, easily within our lifetimes. We don't even understand if HUMAN BEINGS are actually sentient and conscious. How do we even start making a thinking machine? We are still at step 1, and there's probably 10,000 steps to go. It may not be possible for a human being to understand something entirely, just the most vague ideas of it.
Ever head of the Boltzmann Brain? Maybe that is what god is.
Never forget, not only are you stupid, and I'm stupid, we're all fucking stupid. But the really stupid people think they're smart.
Actually what I was saying is the very smallest least complicated example of life we know about is irreducibly complex. I’m not debating about how life forms can evolve and change over millennia and millions of years. I’m making the statement that NO MODEL currently understood by the most highly educated biologists in the world can adequately explain how the FIRST life came to be, in whatever form that took.
Yep, that's completely right.
But it did - somehow. It might have been a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of happening, but if the universe is infinite and time is infinite (it might be! There's good reason to believe the Big Bang is incorrect) - it's going to eventually happen. Maybe it was EXTREMELY unlikely, but it happened anyhow.
Shaman says
Have you heard of the Dunning-Krueger effect?
I'd be frankly surprised if anybody hasn't.
All you really learn is how much you don't fucking know. You can only claim to be an "expert" in a very very small section of any subject.
When I came to Silly Con Valley 20 years ago, it was pretty much accepted as inevitable that we'd have created a thinking, creative, independent machine entity in time, easily within our lifetimes. We don't even understand if HUMAN BEINGS are actually sentient and conscious. How do we even start making a thinking machine? We are still at step 1, and there's probably 10,000 steps to go. It may not be possible for a human being to understand something entirely, just the most vague ideas of it.
Ever head of the Boltzmann Brain? Maybe that is what god is.
Never forget, not only are you stupid, and I'm stupid, we're all fucking stupid. But the really stupid people think they're smart.
110
Patrick
2021 Nov 2, 10:02pm
Patrick
2021 Nov 2, 10:02pm
richwicks says
Not only is a billion years a really long time, the processing is happening in parallel. Quadrillions or whatever ridiculously large number of molecules are bouncing around in the ocean and lakes all the time. Once a magic self-propagating formula happens to appear, then things could really take off as the better versions survive longer and reproduce more.
Or you could shortcut all that with a single mold spore drifting down from space.
A billion years is a really long time.
Not only is a billion years a really long time, the processing is happening in parallel. Quadrillions or whatever ridiculously large number of molecules are bouncing around in the ocean and lakes all the time. Once a magic self-propagating formula happens to appear, then things could really take off as the better versions survive longer and reproduce more.
Or you could shortcut all that with a single mold spore drifting down from space.
111
richwicks
2021 Nov 2, 11:30pm
richwicks
2021 Nov 2, 11:30pm
Patrick says
I struggle with religion.
At one point, I was a complete materialist, and viewed everything though the lens of amorality and superficial self-advantage.
But there really seems to be a force between good and evil. The concept of good and evil seems to be something outside of my own moral viewpoint. There seems to be a real group that simply wants to harm, a group that is amoral, and a group that opposes the harm. There really seems to be a war even though the majority, are simply sheep and don't see it.
Not only is a billion years a really long time, the processing is happening in parallel. Quadrillions or whatever ridiculously large number of molecules are bouncing around in the ocean and lakes all the time. Once a magic self-propagating formula happens to appear, then things could really take off as the better versions survive longer and reproduce more.
I struggle with religion.
At one point, I was a complete materialist, and viewed everything though the lens of amorality and superficial self-advantage.
But there really seems to be a force between good and evil. The concept of good and evil seems to be something outside of my own moral viewpoint. There seems to be a real group that simply wants to harm, a group that is amoral, and a group that opposes the harm. There really seems to be a war even though the majority, are simply sheep and don't see it.
112
Patrick
2021 Nov 3, 12:35am
Patrick
2021 Nov 3, 12:35am
I think the truly hyper-evil people, like Fauci and Pfizer CEO Bourla, just think if it as a game and the people who die as just worthless pawns in their game. It's the mafia mentality, and maybe literally a mafia.
113
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 3, 12:41am
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 3, 12:41am
Amino Acids, Peptides, and Proteins aren't life, they're organic compounds. They carry no information. They also aren't subject to mutation, so they can't evolve.
Oh, there's models galore, but the rubber needs to hit the road at some point:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519397905683
Patrick says
Hoyle remarked that if life was inevitable and simply needed a precisely perfect moment to form when all conditions are right, he said it should take half of the morning to recreate it in a lab.
If you look at abiogensist sites, they have models and scenarios galore, what's stopping them from testing these hypothesis out by mimicking the conditions? They would get results far faster in a controlled, intelligently guided (sorry, couldn't resist) environment.
Crick threw it on aliens, which is the Abiogenesis version of the "Who created the Creator, then", since the panspermiac aliens had to have arisen by natural processes themselves at some point. Kicking the can down the road...
Oh, there's models galore, but the rubber needs to hit the road at some point:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519397905683
Patrick says
Quadrillions or whatever ridiculously large number of molecules are bouncing around in the ocean and lakes all the time.
Hoyle remarked that if life was inevitable and simply needed a precisely perfect moment to form when all conditions are right, he said it should take half of the morning to recreate it in a lab.
If you look at abiogensist sites, they have models and scenarios galore, what's stopping them from testing these hypothesis out by mimicking the conditions? They would get results far faster in a controlled, intelligently guided (sorry, couldn't resist) environment.
Crick threw it on aliens, which is the Abiogenesis version of the "Who created the Creator, then", since the panspermiac aliens had to have arisen by natural processes themselves at some point. Kicking the can down the road...
114
Patrick
2021 Nov 3, 12:42am
Patrick
2021 Nov 3, 12:42am
Space is big. If there are aliens, there are probably a lot of them.
So again, it's a lot of parallel processing.
So again, it's a lot of parallel processing.
115
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 3, 1:22am
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 3, 1:22am
Automan Empire says
The original M-U experiment is invalidated by the fact that the conditions replicated were not that of ancient Earth now known to be the case. Instead, Miller-Urey used Ammonia, lots and lots of Free Hydrogen, Methane, and Ammonia. Big time reducing atmosphere.
We know now it was CO2 and Nitrogen and Water, and also had some trace Oxygen, which M-U excluded entirely. Guess what was produced when the experiment was repeated with the updated atmosphere? Not much, to put it mildly.
MU failed to produce the amino acids essential for life, like lysine and argentine (base amino acids). No variant of the M-U experiment has produced a base amino acid.
The ORIGINAL incarnation of the Miller-Urey experiment was debunked, but further development of it has NOT debunked the notion of complex molecules "spontaneously" forming from simple elements. The fact that the experiment "only" produced simple amino acids on a scale of DAYS doesn't debunk evolution on a time scale of Sagans of years. (Unit meaning "MILLions and BILLions!")
The original M-U experiment is invalidated by the fact that the conditions replicated were not that of ancient Earth now known to be the case. Instead, Miller-Urey used Ammonia, lots and lots of Free Hydrogen, Methane, and Ammonia. Big time reducing atmosphere.
We know now it was CO2 and Nitrogen and Water, and also had some trace Oxygen, which M-U excluded entirely. Guess what was produced when the experiment was repeated with the updated atmosphere? Not much, to put it mildly.
MU failed to produce the amino acids essential for life, like lysine and argentine (base amino acids). No variant of the M-U experiment has produced a base amino acid.
116
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 3, 8:46am
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 3, 8:46am
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
I touched on this upthread. The updated model atmosphere needed an updated "firmament" to work, otherwise conditions became inhospitable to the very existence of larger molecules. IIRC some iron containing minerals didn't bring back the "brown slime" of the original experiment, but it DID start producing amino acids.
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
That the microcosm and short duration of the experiment didn't produce base pairs doesn't prove it couldn't have happened in the actual world. It DID prove that SOME of the building blocks of life form abiotically. I notice creationists and AGW skeptics treat science like cancel culture. Because one study didn't produce a grand unifying theory THIS COMPLETELY DEBUNKS THE ENTIRE CLAIM AND PROVES EVERYONE WHO BELIEVED IT IS FULL OF SHIT. Not how it works outside of lay publications.
We know now it was CO2 and Nitrogen and Water, and also had some trace Oxygen, which M-U excluded entirely. Guess what was produced when the experiment was repeated with the updated atmosphere?
I touched on this upthread. The updated model atmosphere needed an updated "firmament" to work, otherwise conditions became inhospitable to the very existence of larger molecules. IIRC some iron containing minerals didn't bring back the "brown slime" of the original experiment, but it DID start producing amino acids.
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
No variant of the M-U experiment has produced a base amino acid.
That the microcosm and short duration of the experiment didn't produce base pairs doesn't prove it couldn't have happened in the actual world. It DID prove that SOME of the building blocks of life form abiotically. I notice creationists and AGW skeptics treat science like cancel culture. Because one study didn't produce a grand unifying theory THIS COMPLETELY DEBUNKS THE ENTIRE CLAIM AND PROVES EVERYONE WHO BELIEVED IT IS FULL OF SHIT. Not how it works outside of lay publications.
117
Shaman
2021 Nov 3, 10:07am
Shaman
2021 Nov 3, 10:07am
Or perhaps we are more strictly adherent to the scientific method than atheists with an axe to grind and a Creator to debunk.
If your explanation involves too much hand waving, you might as well be counting on sorcery. That’s not science. I believe in science as a method to understand our world and perhaps even ourselves to some degree. Perhaps one day it will be proved that everything somehow arose out of nothing to the satisfaction of the most rigorous scientific method analysis.
But I doubt it.
If your explanation involves too much hand waving, you might as well be counting on sorcery. That’s not science. I believe in science as a method to understand our world and perhaps even ourselves to some degree. Perhaps one day it will be proved that everything somehow arose out of nothing to the satisfaction of the most rigorous scientific method analysis.
But I doubt it.
118
HeadSet
2021 Nov 3, 12:17pm
HeadSet
2021 Nov 3, 12:17pm
Automan Empire says
No, Creation Science and AGW supporters are of the same ilk. Both go into it looking for evidence to prove their faith while ignoring any detractions. AGW is just the Creation Science of the left.
I notice creationists and AGW skeptics treat science like cancel culture.
No, Creation Science and AGW supporters are of the same ilk. Both go into it looking for evidence to prove their faith while ignoring any detractions. AGW is just the Creation Science of the left.
119
richwicks
2021 Nov 3, 1:10pm
richwicks
2021 Nov 3, 1:10pm
Shaman says
It's not a creator to debunk. It's a religion to debunk.
Organized religion is just as evil as any government. Christianity kept Europe in a dark age for nearly 2000 years. Having said that, if it wasn't Christianity that did it, it would have been something else.
Atheism isn't necessarily the answer, but certainly free thought is. If there is a God, there's no human expert or authority on it.
Or perhaps we are more strictly adherent to the scientific method than atheists with an axe to grind and a Creator to debunk.
It's not a creator to debunk. It's a religion to debunk.
Organized religion is just as evil as any government. Christianity kept Europe in a dark age for nearly 2000 years. Having said that, if it wasn't Christianity that did it, it would have been something else.
Atheism isn't necessarily the answer, but certainly free thought is. If there is a God, there's no human expert or authority on it.
120
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 3, 1:11pm
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 3, 1:11pm
HeadSet says
Abiogenesis is like AGW : All Models, little to no Meat.
No, Creation Science and AGW supporters are of the same ilk. Both go into it looking for evidence to prove their faith while ignoring any detractions. AGW is just the Creation Science of the left.
Abiogenesis is like AGW : All Models, little to no Meat.
121
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 3, 1:12pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 3, 1:12pm
HeadSet says
I said AGW SKEPTICS. You responded to my post exactly the way the post predicted an AGW skeptic would, when that wasn't even the topic.
No, Creation Science and AGW supporters are of the same ilk.
I said AGW SKEPTICS. You responded to my post exactly the way the post predicted an AGW skeptic would, when that wasn't even the topic.
122
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 3, 1:14pm
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 3, 1:14pm
Automan Empire says
"Just because there hasn't been a miracle in the past century doesn't mean there won't be one"
The Grand Unifying Theory is a straw man. Let's get to demonstrating some information carrying, self-replicating things not dependent on currently existing life + byproducrts first. Don't have to be perfect, just something. The claim that Abiogenesis skeptics are asking for a full up simple cell with RNA/DNA or at least just RNA out of an experiment is a strawman. Of course, with very unstable ribose (not to mention a bunch of other things) being absolutely necessary for any kind of life as we know it existing outside a some kind of membrane to keep the outside out and the inside in. That's one of the big issues: even super simple life ain't all that simple when you get down into the nitty-gritty.
The burden of proof is on the Proffer.
That organic compounds are created given reducing and other conditions is not the creation of life. Pretty much every experiment hailed as "A huge step in proving abiogenesis" involves using enzymes and other byproducts of already living things, like Yeast. Invalid, because the part that must be proved is how you get to living things to produce those results without the prior existence of living things and their byproducts.
The way Abiogenesists get angry and huffy about valid criticism is not much different than when ANY belief system being challenged, be it YEC, AGW, Yakob the Devil, etc.
That the microcosm and short duration of the experiment didn't produce base pairs doesn't prove it couldn't have happened in the actual world. It DID prove that SOME of the building blocks of life form abiotically. I notice creationists and AGW skeptics treat science like cancel culture. Because one study didn't produce a grand unifying theory THIS COMPLETELY DEBUNKS THE ENTIRE CLAIM AND PROVES EVERYONE WHO BELIEVED IT IS FULL OF SHIT. Not how it works outside of lay publications.
"Just because there hasn't been a miracle in the past century doesn't mean there won't be one"
The Grand Unifying Theory is a straw man. Let's get to demonstrating some information carrying, self-replicating things not dependent on currently existing life + byproducrts first. Don't have to be perfect, just something. The claim that Abiogenesis skeptics are asking for a full up simple cell with RNA/DNA or at least just RNA out of an experiment is a strawman. Of course, with very unstable ribose (not to mention a bunch of other things) being absolutely necessary for any kind of life as we know it existing outside a some kind of membrane to keep the outside out and the inside in. That's one of the big issues: even super simple life ain't all that simple when you get down into the nitty-gritty.
The burden of proof is on the Proffer.
That organic compounds are created given reducing and other conditions is not the creation of life. Pretty much every experiment hailed as "A huge step in proving abiogenesis" involves using enzymes and other byproducts of already living things, like Yeast. Invalid, because the part that must be proved is how you get to living things to produce those results without the prior existence of living things and their byproducts.
The way Abiogenesists get angry and huffy about valid criticism is not much different than when ANY belief system being challenged, be it YEC, AGW, Yakob the Devil, etc.
124
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 3, 1:33pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 3, 1:33pm
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says
Took the initiative.
https://patrick.net/post/1342250/2021-11-03-life-was-it-made-or-did-it-just-happen
Anybody for a separate thread?
Took the initiative.
https://patrick.net/post/1342250/2021-11-03-life-was-it-made-or-did-it-just-happen
125
HeadSet
2021 Nov 3, 2:50pm
HeadSet
2021 Nov 3, 2:50pm
Automan Empire says
I knew what you wrote. And it is still correct - AGW support is not a conclusion based on scientific evidence, but rather a political faith. You show that yourself by the term "AGW Skeptic" as if that term implies evil. True scientists are always skeptical and need actual reproduceable proof.
HeadSet saysNo, Creation Science and AGW supporters are of the same ilk.
I said AGW SKEPTICS. You responded to my post exactly the way the post predicted an AGW skeptic would, when that wasn't even the topic.
I knew what you wrote. And it is still correct - AGW support is not a conclusion based on scientific evidence, but rather a political faith. You show that yourself by the term "AGW Skeptic" as if that term implies evil. True scientists are always skeptical and need actual reproduceable proof.
128
GNL
2021 Nov 4, 4:19am
GNL
2021 Nov 4, 4:19am
richwicks says
^^^^^. Although, the Pope would beg to differ with you on this. I am NOT a fan of the Pope.
If there is a God, there's no human expert or authority on it.
^^^^^. Although, the Pope would beg to differ with you on this. I am NOT a fan of the Pope.
130
Patrick
2021 Nov 11, 11:15am
Patrick
2021 Nov 11, 11:15am
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-hospital-california
welcome to the hospital california
you can check in any time you like, but there might not be any doctors...
el gato malo
1 hr ago
president brandon and his merry band of miscreants have been busy mandating covid vaccines for health care workers. many states have done so as well.
this is going to create severe staffing crunches.
18% of front line HCW’s are not planning to vaccinate.
this rises to 24% in nursing homes.
this winter when hospitals are having “weather disruptions” like american and southwest airlines because the winds of “i do not wish to be vaccinated against my will” among health workers are reaching gale force, just remember:
this is not covid.
this is bad policy.
this is literally an attempt by health officials to:
“make hospitals and assisted living facilities safe by preventing doctors and nurses from making healthcare choices.”
no sane public health official would do this.
this has NOTHING to do with a virus. if it did, you’d trust acquired immunity and the medical judgement of doctors.
these people are wreckers.
they WANT these systems to break. they want a hospital crisis because that will create “an emergency” that allows them to step in and regulate or grab control or nationalize.
do NOT fall for this. this is a game of chicken and the doctors who want to have their own bodies be their own choice are in the right.
support health workers as they strike and stand up for themselves.
they were there for us. be there for them.
not only is this the morally correct thing to do, but it’s also in your own self-interest if you ever again want to be able to have your own medical choices be between you and your chosen physician.
can you seriously believe that a system that will not allow doctors to make THEIR OWN healthcare choices can be trusted to let them help you make YOURS?
this is not about your health, it’s about their power. their regulatory edifice seeks to subsume all of healthcare and to do it, they’re seeing to BREAK all healthcare.
this will not be market failure.
this will be market sabotage.
be sure you blame the right people.
and be sure you repay wreckers with being wrecked in return.
131
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 11, 4:31pm
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 11, 4:31pm
I believe the CDC has an "Honor System" or "Ask but don't verify" system of COVID vaccine verification.
132
Patrick
2021 Dec 13, 9:03pm
Patrick
2021 Dec 13, 9:03pm
https://strongandfreecanada.org/vlog/special-release-alberta-frontline-workers-ejected-from-our-hospitals-for-not-getting-the-vaccine/?source=patrick.net
Today, Monday December 13 an unknown number of frontline health care workers were ejected from Alberta hospitals for exercising their right to bodily autonomy. In this 2 minute video physiotherapy assistant Lidia Konkel records her forced dismissal. Listen to the whole recording. Video content starts at 1:15. Watch for Will’s upcoming interview with Lidia.
« First « Previous Comments 94 - 133 of 156 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,551 comments by 15,051 users - AmericanKulak online now