DarianF

Wow. That is a very special position to be in. You're very blessed.

Could have just said that from Day 1 and everything would have been fine.

Don't underestimate the power of memes, even in serious matters.

LOL I was literally just about to reply again asking if you could add a syringe. We were on the same wavelength, it seems ;-) Great work buddy.

Because he's a very naughty boy.

(nice one! lol) out of reactions

Fair point.

I don't give a shit if anyone wears a mask or takes a poison jab and fifty boosters, as long as they don't force it on me.

Dr Sam seems to know a bit. https://t.me/s/drsambaileyofficial

Alan Watt was also spot on...

@Mitochondrial Eve My amateurish summary may not do the above answer justice. Here is a better summary of key concepts: KEY CONCEPTS A. A mutation is a random change to an organism’s DNA sequence. B. The environment contributes to determining whether a mutation is advantageous, deleterious, or neutral. C. Mutations that increase the fitness of an organism increase in frequency in a population. D. Evolution can happen quickly (in hundreds of years, or even less); advantageous genetic mutations can increase in frequency in a population quite rapidly, even if the fitness advantage to the organism is small. E. Different mutations in the same gene, or even mutations in different genes, can result in the same phenotype. F. While mutations can be random, natural selection is not random. G. Selective pressure depends on the environment in which an organism lives. This means that other organisms in the environment (in this case, the predators) can be a selective force. Source (teacher resource): https://www.biointeractive.org/sites/default/files/IDG_NaturalSelection.pdf Original video (related to the above): The Making of the Fittest: Natural Selection and Adaptation ---> https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/making-fittest-natural-selection-and-adaptation

Sorry @webtrekker I think you accidentally quoted me there. I think you meant to quote the dude I was responding to.

Most appreciated, @Mitochondrial Eve. Obviously no quick answers here. Detailed stuff. For your specific question, as I understand it, mutations are random. They are not inherently 'good or bad'. Environmental factors and survival pressures then determine which mutations are favoured over time. It's a pretty basic concept. I'm assuming the other part of your question is related to Genetic variation, gene flow, and new species? https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/tree-of-life/v/genetic-variation-gene-flow-and-new-species I think the question you're asking is the one asked / answered here: 'How can evolution happen if information cannot be added to DNA?' ( https://www.quora.com/How-can-evolution-happen-if-information-cannot-be-added-to-DNA ), or the one covered here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/ Here is some more detail on the issue of mutations: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898/ So when you claim information cannot be added, what do you mean? And the original claim made - that you are using as the basis for the question - has it been peer reviewed? I'd love for you to throw me some specific journal articles my way to make sure I'm understanding the precision of what you're saying.

“We are inescapably the result of a long heritage of learning, adaptation, mutation and evolution, the product of a history which predates our birth as a biological species and stretches back over many thousand millennia…. Going further back, we share a common ancestry with our fellow primates; and going still further back, we share a common ancestry with all other living creatures and plants down to the simplest microbe. The further back we go, the greater the difference from external appearances and behavior patterns which we observe today…. Darwin’s theory, which is now accepted without dissent, is the cornerstone of modern biology. Our own links with the simplest forms of microbial life are well-nigh proven.” –Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe (1978), p.15-16

That's funny, considering all the memes above mine But okay I know you love your little safe spaces.

@Morpheus Now, as for the origin of life, that is an active area of research ( a good summary here: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11919/chapter/7 ). As far as I recall, Hoyle was a proponent of life being brought to earth from space (exogenous delivery of some kind), but even if that were the case, you would still have to explain how that life got started elsewhere. Chyba and Sagan wrote good papers about exogenous delivery of organic materials in 1992 ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11538392/ ) and 1990 ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11538074/ ). Also discussed here ---> https://youtu.be/hF1VDUsmzu0?t=758 It's interesting that Hoyle himself believed life arrived to earth via comet ( https://www.irishtimes.com/news/according-to-hoyle-life-arrived-on-earth-by-comet-1.242215 ), but I think the kind of life he meant was life already formed in outerspace (but again, how did that begin? Same problem). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia Some research suggests 'Carbonaceous meteorites contain a wide range of extraterrestrial nucleobases' ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21836052/ ) so that's a good angle to explore in the modern context.

The 'Junkyard Tornado' is a well known fallacy. It's called 'Hoyle's Fallacy' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado ). It has been hijacked by creationists and misapplied to evolutionary biology ( https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-tornado-in-the-junkyard/ ). The most popular counterargument to it would be the 'Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit ). You might want to check out 'Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations' by Ian Musgrave ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html ), which goes into more detail. Hoyle's argument is basically the argument from improbability ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vUSQMqyOo ).

They always test it there first, just like the first lockdowns.

Mask up, the way nature intended...

Funny how 'the new virus' did that in China, but nowhere else. LOL

It's interesting how the flu exists, then doesn't exist, then magically exists again, whenever the Covid narrative requires it to exist or not exist.

Sort of like those faked people dropping in the street in China when all this started, but this time, it's real?

You mean, when you enter the room of someone who has tested positive with with a bullshit PCR test for a fake virus?

@Golden Retriever The Best Female Swimmer in the World!