Windows 10 is microsoft's deepstate OS. They can do whatever they want with your computer iOS is little different Android is Google's OS tentacle
It is not enough to download files, or links. You must store them on USB drives and only ever interface that USB with a Linux OS. Ideally one that is only used for archiving that you don't modify/dl/install other programs on, but just being linux is huge.
I'm fucking serious.
Those who ignore me will one day insert their USB into their windows machine to add some new videos to it, and the USB will magically be empty. Because their OS was told to wipe it next time it was inserted. And you'll never know what happened or why.
People who simply have it downloaded will find their second hard drive mysteriously dead one day, or the files simply gone.
I mean, it would be if it was 3 months ago like it ought to have been.
It's fucking march. So this is great news, but it's a little late to be HUGE. They've had time to fuck shit up.
For you, there is positive utility in that which is objective
For them, the objective carries negative utility - so they don't engage with it
So if you want to change their position, you can not do so with truth, and must do so entirely on narrative. Make them believe that supporting the police when they do nothing wrong against a criminal who made his life, and they'll suddenly find all the evidence in the world supporting that position. But you have to sell them on the position first, not the evidence.
all I can do is sit back and be silent
If they are injecting their nonsense, you need to inject truth back.
Straight up, they are in a meeting and start up, "omg, I'm so happy to get the vaccine, as soon as everyone gets it we can all feel safe and open up again!" you need to start a rant right there and then. Push back. Hard.
I do. I am very disagreeable (in the Jordan Peterson sense), so I have no problem doing this. And you all need to follow because it works.
The conclusion won't be you're right, but it will be that you can't just spout off whatever without pushback. Plenty of times I've done this at work, it works. At first I've gotten pulled aside after because of how unpopular my positions were, and how divisive it was, and how this is a place of business and not a soap box --
But every time I calmly explained that I am NEVER the one to bring it up, and I only ever provide a contrary position after OTHERTS begin injecting their own politics and beliefs. I'm happy to say nothing, but only if they say nothing. And if they would like me to not use meetings as soap box, that they shouldn't either. Otherwise the company is taking a stance that one political opinion is allowable to have while others are not.
Things happened behind the scenes because things have been professional since. No George Floyd nonsense, no vaccine nonsense, zero election talk pre and post Nov. Nothing. I made it so work is not a safe space for virtue signaling years ago, early Trump, and made the case that they bear responsibility for how professional the environment is, not me.
The best time to stand up was 4 years ago, the second best time is today.
Or, this is just a normal technique used daily across the world.
Are you suggesting nothing like this happened in April? March? February? 2018? 2017?
It wasn't engineered, the left just makes ammunition out of whatever is going on, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. If it was engineered they wouldn't have released a tox report that damning, or had it been an approved technique for solid reasons, or had Floyd say he can't breath while he was still in the car. If it was engineered they'd have done it in a way that would leave us no defense so they could push through their defund goals without resistance.
You folks need to learn to better vet evidence. You all keep looking for positive correlation but that's not how hypothesis testing works - you don't go looking to prove a theory (oh look, there were additional similar events around this date!) but you should instead try and disprove it (weird, nothing like this ever occurs then suddenly there were three events within days and the US even only happened after the other two failed to achieve desired results). You need a negative control, a baseline to compare about. Were these three events unusual or the norm? You never asked, you never investigated.
Falsifiability, but the inability to do so is the characteristic of a good theory. This one is garbage.
None of this is new, we've had the cell phone video for ever, the tox stuff within weeks, and the full body cam videos within a month.
Truth doesn't matter to these people. In their minds truth is subjective, rather than objective, so it is something that is chosen and they judge you on the truth you CHOOSE to believe.
Anyone who would choose to believe GF signed his own death sentence rather than being a victim of a violent uncaring force of tyranny which terrorizes the black community is a bad person because they've chosen the disgusting belief over the powerful and elevating one.
We could all be rising up against a wrong, but instead you've chosen to suggest that result was deserved, that everything went as it should, that it was all appropriate reaction after appropriate reaction - that a black man dying under the boot of a man who you believe was a good person doing a good job which resulted in a regrettable but acceptable outcome rather than one we should stand against.
Truth never enters the picture.
/r/GME has been particularly receptive of my prodding
Straight out of The Wire
We've known about this shit forever
Mushroom cloud does not equal nuc. It's just what happens in large explosions.
Just adding to this.
This. The crisis actor is who you put on TV to frame the narrative. The parent no one has seen before, the kid who was in some class that no one's kid was in. Not everyone is, most are actual students, sharing their stories of the maladjusted kid who killed himself at the end of the spree... no they never saw him but let me tell you about how scared I was hearing the shots while hiding behind my desk. The crisis actor gets the sound bite in.
Why? Show your math.
Why isn't 5 billion years enough?
You're so confident but have you actually done the math and multiplied this all out? Biology is my trade, so I intrinsically understand the biochemistry going on, but do you really, really understand the insane proclivity of these interactions?
What do you know about the interactions necessary? What do you know about the speeds they occur at? What are the concentrations of the precursors, and how prevalent are they?
How large is the earth? How many stars are there in our galaxy and how many Primordial earths have existed in those 5 billion years? How many galaxies are there.
I really don't think you understand the scale you're betting against.
My challenge to you is to actually find for yourself the numbers on just a few of those factors since you clearly aren't trusting me as a source. When you start multiplying them together and get tired of counting zeros maybe you'll get it and your resistance to the idea will fall away.
Except billions of years is a shit ton of time, primordial earth is huge, nucleic acids are a common comparatively stable product of these environments, them joining together in those conditions is not rare, and these interactions occur thousands of times a second at a scale we don't appreciate at this level.
All you need is the right order, and we're not talking a Shakespeare length play, but only a few hundred at most to get self replication.
Not only is it possible, but probable.
And that's just on earth. When you take a galaxy as large as ours, with as many planets as there are and then as many galaxies as there are, even with the most conservative estimates you might plug in for those probabilities it's near mathematically impossible for self replicating nucleic acids NOT to form, but because how life as we know it is the clear result of it one can conclude that this universe, reality and creation as we know it, exists specifically for us to be the result.
We're not talking a hundred monkeys in a room over a millennia. We're talking trillions upon trillions over a billion years each on a hundred million worlds each in a trillion galaxies.
Those metaphorical monkeys in those numbers over that timeframe are going to write Romeo and Juliet, the Bible, War and Peace, an Pi to a thousand digits. But they only have to write just one just once. If you're still pessimistic, Earth doesn't need to be here after all, Earth need only be where it happened. That's what God did, it's far more amazing, and you won't allow yourself to appreciate it just because some retard atheists told you it proves god doesn't exist for some reason.
Gradual means incremental, and fast and slow are all relative. That which takes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years is both slow or fast, gradual or rapid, entire based on it's context.
If your argument is Darwin is wrong because it isn't ALWAYS 'slow' then fine, no one cares. Darwin was wrong about a ton of things. Evolution isn't married to Darwin's description of it.
If those transitional species actually existed they would die and leave fossils just like anything else
It's a numbers game. If you're looking for something that existed in small relative numbers for a short period of time it's going to be overwhelmed by species that have established themselves in greater numbers in those same layers.
Transitional fossils are nice, but you're asking the impossible to demand those in an explosion. "Sure, we have transitional fossils for all sorts of other cases... but you don't have them for this that or the other things, checkmate" ... WRONG
all the current evidence refutes the theory of gradual evolution and points strongly and convincingly towards purposeful design by a creator.
That's an outright lie. There is zero evidence. Demanding x or else it must not be so isn't "evidence". Provide one piece of evidence that argues against evolution.
Agree with incremental
And that argument is a fine one, but it's no more a defense of evolution being fake, than water not being wet because god replaces your memory every time your interact with it.
At the end of the day you have to define reality in how it presents itself because the point is to be falsifiable and predictive. Evolution is, god creating the universe yesterday at 3pm isn't.
So while it's a fine semantic exercise it doesn't hold utility.
Reality does not require an observer to be objective
Stories that get in the way of belief are not reason not to believe - reason to question and to think and to wonder what the pieces must be in order for it all to fit together sure.
It is a constant surprise how many have so little faith that they NEED evolution to be a lie in order to believe.
Evolution shouldn't threaten in any way your belief, it's the universe as god deemed it.
Except that yes, it absolutely is enough time. And not just because "well obviously, look around here we are so it must be so", but because billions of years is a metric fuck ton of time, and evolution doesn't rally take as much time as many think. It just requires things to get shaken up now and then so that new toolsets be given the opportunity to thrive against an environment without optimized dead ends competing out new lines of change.
The short answer is one change, that itself is profound, that opens up a wide untapped evolutionary space for evolutionary exploration. Which is precisely what occurred in the Cambrian.
In a billion years you could say something similarly outrageous about humans, tool use, and thinking creatures. Billions of years of the same sort of self centered instinct driven organisms then (from their future perspective) boom, suddenly mammals, pack animals, social creatures, thinking, tool using. In the snap of a finger there are cities and technology, and a single species dominating the globe. Where's the fossil record of where it all came from? It was all reptiles and birds and fish and then in a blink of an eye suddenly spacefaring self aware social creatures with huge extremely well developed brains.
You're not going to find a ten thousand year fossil record buried in all that. So that's 'not evolution', there was no gradual process. That has to therefore be intelligent design. Someone snapped their fingers and put them there like that with purpose and intention. And we are nothing special compared to what sparked the Cambrian!
The Cambrian was a paradigm shift of proportions I'd argue even greater than cyano bacteria. You went from at most colonies of the same, or collaborative single cells banding together to share divergent function, to the game charger: A single cell containing all the regulatory capacity to differentiate. If it was at the top of the colony it produced more chloroplasts, if at the sides it produced defenses against invaders, if at the bottom it produced more flagellum.
This wasn't a game changer just because it made the perfectly optimized colony, but because it was the development of a toolset that made the previously impossible, possible. Proper multicellular organisms. The world had never seen a tail before, but now you could. Light sensitive patches in a cell could detect light and shadow, but now 'eye' cells could cluster together, they could bend inward the way multicellular structures can and cell membranes can't to create cups and then pinholes, and sight as we better know it. You could become large, too large for anything single celled to predate upon.
All thanks to unlocking regulatory processes that allowed for cellular differentialization!
And because all this was new, because there was no competition in these spaces to restrict, and because so much was such low hanging evolutionary fruit, it happened very quickly. A complex nervous system takes time, but a simple one doesn't. Legs are quite difficult actually, but neither a tail's construction or it's use is hard. And because there is no apex creature out there to constrain, evolution can try a thousand different suboptimal variations as it fills out and explores the world's diverse niches. You can get there fast, in an assortment of combinations because you don't have to build the perfect combination like we do today, any tail is an advantage. Any eye, any system to anchor yourself to the sea bed, or grasp, or bite, the bar is so low and the rewards so immense.
Today we have things largely figured out, back then they hadn't. You could have the perfect eye but not figured out locomotion yet, while some long distant cousin had perfected locomotion but not vision - so neither had an aggregate advantage. Both competed relatively equally for the same niche, so two version (or three, or thirteen) could co-exist where today one would compete out the rest. Because this ends up being the case across so many additional dimensions, invertebrates, vertebrates, exoskeletons, fins, gills, pinchers and teeth and mouths, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems -- so many early and unperfected systems unique to life as a multicellular organism that you end up with insane diversity. Because each of these dimensions was one where you could advantage yourself in a way to compete against the others that were further along a different path in another.
Today we have less comparative diversity because there is largely a right way to do all these things, learned back in the days of the Cambrian. We can't have a predator with shitty vision that makes up for it with great locomotion, because we have predators with both that will out compete it. When organisms first burst onto the scene, everything low hanging was there to trial without cost of being punished because everything was new and advantage, until one species figured it all out, another down another path which figured things out in a different order could compete.
Measured against today, it was fast and diverse, but of course it was. Today isn't the benchmark. If you want to take the Savanah from the Lions, you can't just be a cheetah, or a hyena both serving a different niche - you have to be a straight up better lion. The Cambrian had dozens of new dimensions to advance and coexist in incompleteness along.
No transitional fossils just means it happened fast. Gradual, but fast. And it only takes one thing, just one new change to go from extremely simple life, to complex life - internal regulation. It's how a single embryo and a single sperm turn into a human being. It's the systems which allow our cells to query their environment and their neighbors and up regulate this protein, down regulate the expression of this gene, and become myocardial versus neural.
What the precise factor was that took basic regulation to the levels necessary for proper multicellular organisms is unknown but irrelevant - the advantage once that threshold is past is absurdly profound and invariably leads where we see it lead. And which ever cellular species that got there first was destined to be THE precursor to everything that would quickly follow.
I suppose the TLDR is: Who told you evolution is necessarily slow?
I can't argue against a position you haven't articulated.
You say the Cambrian explosion completely invalidates Darwin, but... what?? how?? I can't even imagine why you would think such a thing in the first place.
When we’re smart enough, we’ll find God’s autograph on his creation.
And it's called natural selection.
When his children can not conceive it, he says that he created light, and then the firmament to separate the waters, and when they are ready they recognize it as the suns igniting and processing hydrogen and helium into the larger elements necessary for life, before exploding and recoalescing into planets of water, separated by the cosmos inbetween, or from our perspective, what's up there, the firmament.
Some asshole said evolution proved god didn't exist, and because you knew god existed, that must mean evolution is wrong. But you've missed the point entirely. The premise that evolution refutes god was as absurd an argument as heliocentrism was an argument against god. The atheist was wrong not because he believed evolution, but because he was grasping at anything to prove his point but you somehow allowed evolution to belong to him rather to you.
Once you realize that, you can better admire god's work.
Life took billions of years.
Labs have absolutely HAVE recreated ALL the necessary principals that time uses to form the complexity of man from random elements.
Amino acids and nucleic acids HAVE been formed in the laboratory under primordial conditions. They HAVE bound into chains, these chains DO have the capacity in certain sequences to self replication, and that's literally all you have to demonstrated to get natural selection going. Literally everything else follows from that.
Give a laboratory the size of planet earth a billion years and they can 'artificially' 'create' life. That's a testament both to how rare the events are, but also how possible given how much time has passed and how big the universe is.
But the critical point, that every step necessary being demonstrated, has been met.
The big bang is something entirely separate, but you're selling god short by YOU arbitrarily deciding for some weird reason that evolution is incompatible with god's ability.
We are not irreducibly complex
We are not two cards leaning against one another where one card can not exist without the other. Gradual addition is possible for everything we have seen, and your clotting example is such an example; As long as every step is a net positive, it doesn't matter if there are downsides to be ironed out.
Clotting at all is a HUGE advantage over getting punctured and dying. Sure, there are downsides if you're missing the complex regulatory and safety features modern clotting has, but circulatory systems have existed almost as long as true multicellular organisms have - bleeding out has been a selective pressure that whole time.
So first you clot, and that's a game changer. Sure if it clots in the wrong place or if you can't clear it you'll meat the double edge of that sword but hey - being punctured is no longer a guaranteed death sentence. That's a NET POSITIVE.
Then you evolve all the other features we come to have.
'Darwinian' evolution absolutely has the evidence to support it. All the way from the biochemical at the level of nucleic acid formation into self replication, to cooperative association to form proto-cells, to gradual organ development as with eyes, systems development like the circulatory system to include clotting, to the organism level where we gain and lose traits adapting to an environment and it's pressures in species altering fashions. It's all there.
It's all from god, and you have missed it because you somehow think god's grand plan is incompatible with god... all because you hated the messenger.
Ok, let's explain the eye. Let's agree that there needs to be a stepwise process; From something stupidly simple, to something profoundly complex. It has to be stepwise, it can't just be "well, light sensitive cells exist, and a inverted curved lensed organ is better" because goddamn it, you need to go from 'a' to 'B C D E F' before you get to 'G'.
So let's do that.
I know Richard Dawkins is an ass, but here he is as a much younger self explaining just that, long before he became a jaded asshat filled with malice.
If you hate that, here's a modern TED explanation, but Dawkins honestly does a better job.
It all starts with light sensitive cells.
Unsurprising, and not just because it's a thing that exists, but photons interact with electron distribution across complex molecules and a protein whose confirmation is altered slightly by photon interaction is going to be a regular occurrence and all it takes is one which is very sensitive to this effect to imagine basic utility arising from it. Photosynthesis is based on protein interaction with light and it's a few small step from light = food to light = an eye.
These light sensitive proteins fire off I'm getting close to food, and when they aren't, I'm moving away from food. Why? Well I don't know that, but it's true. I don't know that more light means easier photosynthesis, which is good for me because I photosynthesize (or maybe because I eat photosynthesizes)
So next I group these proteins in strategic locations - more light towards my front, less light in my back, now I understand direction
And then I curve it inward so I can identify precise direction
Then it curves so much that it starts to close in on itself, which ought to be terrible, but actually I'm getting closer and closer to a pin hole lens
But now I have this cavity and I want to keep gunk from getting in so I close it off with a transparent cover
But covers don't have to be uniform, oops, mine has different thicknesses at different parts -- actually, one version of that is a lens, wow that's awesome.
But that lens is only good for one direction. Oh well, I'll just use these structural cells to hold it precisely in place... oh wait, what it those structural cells flex and alter the shape of my lens, now I can focus at distance.
Oh my, I have an eye.
Ethically, a humanized mouse can be one where it has been genetically altered to produce human variants of a number of genes. Typically, we're very genetically similar to many mammals, but small differences in code can have huge effects 'down stream' so to speak, so to make mouse models more closely predictive of what to expect in humans, little changes like that are a big deal
#HOWEVER
It can also refer to mice who have been transplanted with human cells. Where possible, this obviously closes the gap even further... but in truth you're not really running a mouse trial, you're running a human trial in a mouse incubator. Which SHOULD raise questions that any other human trial would... like consent of the patient. But in this case doesn't. Where did those human cells come from again?
Isn't it lovely how the evil hide behind definitions? They lump the reprehensible under an umbrella of acceptable, change definitions to include them, all to manipulate your reaction?
"We've been doing humanized mouse trials for decades, I don't understand what all this anger is about. These people are so anti-science"