No.748[Last 50 Posts]
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778>Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests.>"It's worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity,"https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/stories/sciences-under-discussed-problem-with-confirmation-bias/> Research scientists are under pressure to get published in the most prominent journals possible, and their chances increase considerably if they find positive (thus “impactful”) results. For journals, the appeal is clear, writes Philip Ball for Nautilus: they’ll make a bigger splash if they discover some new truth, rather than if they simply refuted old findings. The reality is that science rarely produces data so appealing.> The quest for publication has led some scientists to manipulate data, analysis, and even their original hypotheses. In 2014, John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor conducting researching on research (or ‘meta-research’), found that across the scientific field, “many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated.” Ioannidis, who estimates that 85 percent of research resources are wasted, claims that the frequency of positive results well exceeds how often one should expect to find themWhen did you realize that science is all about confirmation bias and mental gymnastics?
No.749
When i realized women could become scientists.
No.750
Where's the 2nd from?
No.751
>>749Unironically a good one, femoids fuckin' owned lmao heh
No.754
OP, got anything on microevolution?
No.755
>>753>Sun>orbiting EarthHERESY! Oh, mighty Copernicus! Smite these pagan scum!
*tips fedora*
No.756
>>753what proof is there of geocentrism?
No.757
>>756Don't listen to this heathen, brother! We all "know" heliocentrism is a "fact" despite that it doesn't rely on empirical macrocosmic observation.
*unsheathes Occam's razor*
*cleaves complexity in half*
Heh, simplicity for simplicity's sake is powerful!
No.758
>>754I do, actually. Unfortunately they're peer-reviewed (LMAO) so I wouldn't call them reliable.
(1).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519377900443(2).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2199970/>A method of targeted random mutagenesis has been used to investigate the informational content of 25 residue positions in two alpha-helical regions of the N-terminal domain of lambda repressor. Examination of the functionally allowed sequences indicates that there is a wide range in tolerance to amino acid substitution at these positions. At positions that are buried in the structure, there are severe limitations on the number and type of residues allowed. At most surface positions, many different residues and residue types are tolerated. However, at several surface positions there is a strong preference for hydrophilic amino acids, and at one surface position proline is absolutely conserved. The results reveal the high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular protein fold.This study was conducted at M.I.T where the authors experimented with re-building proteins by taking away amino acids and replacing them with other amino acids. They found that some parts of a protein chain are tolerant to substitutions but other parts are completely intolerant, showing that proteins are not arbitrary collections of component chemicals but rare and unique combinations. This confirm the conclusion of my first source that the probability of a specific folded protein coming into being by undirected evolution is 1 in 10(65). The practically infinite number of other combinations that could form at random are useless protein sequences for living organisms.
(3)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283604007624>Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme FoldsThis paper is just a technical way of saying that new enzyme folds are impossible to produce by natural selection. This experiment set out to measure the sensitivity to destabilization of proteins. When proteins are destabilized they lose function and if they lose their function they cannot continue to exist, which means further transformation or conversion into other proteins become impossible. This loss of function gives a measure of the rarity of stable functional folds. You could say that you need a miracle to produce a self-replicating cell out of nothing.
(4)
ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58511/
>Searching sequence space for protein catalysts>This study provides a quantitative assessment of the number of sequences compatible with a given fold and implicates previously unidentified residues needed to form a functional active site.>Misplacement of catalytic residues by even a few tenths of an angstrom can mean the difference between full activity and none at all.>Our estimate of the low frequency of protein catalysts in sequence space indicates that it will not be possible to isolate enzymes from unbiased random libraries in a single step.>The required library sizes far exceed what is currently accessible by experiment, even with in vitro methodsThis study determined that you cannot prove evolution experimentally because the amount of trials you would need is beyond anything that is remotely possible.
No.759
>>758>(1).png>spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of "complexity" not "order"Spot on. Fusing random ingredients together doesn't create life.
No.760
>>757so no proof other than lol fedora?
cool
No.761
>>760There is no evidence for heliocentrism, only calculations.
No.762
>>761There's no evidence i cummed in yer mums pussy only the fact that you exist
No.764
oh look, another tldr ctrl c ctrl v thread
No.766
>>765no but having not being able to even condense your posts to a tldr is a mark of your woodbrain
No.769
>>762I know you can't accept that your illusion is shattered. It's fine.
No.771
Science is the opium of the fedoras.
No.774
>>773That video sums up atheism pretty neatly.
No.777
>>763>>769Lol no I agree with you guys I just saw an opportunity to roast anon and I had to take it
No.778
>>753>There is no objective universal reference point and thus any point in the universe can be stationaryfalse. imagine for an instant that a rocket launches off of earth and into space. if youre a drooling retard you may think that your space ship is at rest and that the earth (5.972 × 10^24 kg) suddenly started moving away from your space ship at multiple kilometers per second, however, upon any examination at all we can conclude that objectively your space ship must be moving because there was no event capable of moving such a massive object so fast so instantaneously. moreover, while flying around in deep space, light years away from earth, if you assume yourself to be at rest you would find that the earth and everything in the universe would accelerate every time you hit the gas on your rocket thrusters. being able to instantly accelerate all the mass in the universe minus yourself is what you defend if you defend jewish relativity "science".
No.780
>>779Oy vey, questioning gravity and the speed of light as constants? Quickly, call the Albert Einstein defense league!
No.781
>>780Ironic how physicists don't really have any idea how fast light travels. I guess they follow their hunches.
No.784
When you are a gullible teenager you think science can answer everything.
No.785
>>784The Amazing Atheist is a good example why you should never buy a fedora and worship science.
No.786
Uh - I hope you don't find anything better to do? Heh!
No.788
>>787Interesting. So no one knows what life really is or how to replicate it.
No.793
Only if you are devoid of critical thinking then science will give you all the answers.
No.795
>>793Science? More like mongoloid chromosomes.
No.798
>>796Anything that goes against the current scientific narrative becomes instantly labeled as pseudo-science. I have yet to see anything tangible when speaking about "evolution".
No.799
>>798and who the fuck are ‘‘you’’?
an ignorant conspiratard. your opinion has 0 value
No.800
>>796Great paper! Thanks for the information. It reminds me of this:
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-taung-child-skull-brain-human-like.html>By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies in the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility, researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans.All the fossils discovered in Africa that supposedly prove we descended from apes are really just dead apes. Their cranial structure, in reality, have no value in terms of evidence. They're so far removed from us physically that only wishful thinking will prove anything.
No.801
>>798Most keyboard warriror atheists have no idea what they're talking about. They can only regurgitate talking points that Richard Dawkins has already spouted a billion times.
No.802
>>800Very interesting. I wonder how many leaps of faith anthropologists make when they can't find clear similarities.
No.803
>>802They do not really have evidence, though. Just a lot of gaps.
No.804
>>803https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11555>DNA has a 521-year half-lifeWhen people say we come from monkeys I laugh. There is literally no genetic evidence to support this idea because DNA breaks down too fast.
No.805
>>804The molecular apparatus has complex ways of generating insertions and deletions in DNA, which we are only beginning to understand. For example, a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well? The problem is that we cannot tell which DNA sequence alignment is right, and the one we choose will contain implicit information about what evolutionary events have occurred, which will in turn affect the amount of similarity we tally. How similar is this stretch of DNA between human and orangutan? There may be eight differences or eleven differences, depending on how we decide the bases correspond to each other across the species—and that is, of course, assuming that a one-base gap is also equivalent to a five-base gap and to a base substitution. This is the fundamental problem of homology in biology: What is the precisely corresponding sequences in the other species? The answer is that no one knows. Since you don't have genetic remains that have been preserved for millions of years, as with all the empty hominid skeletons in Africa, you have no case. It's guesswork and not solid proof.
The structure of DNA is built up of four subunits. Our reproductive cells has a length of DNA encompassing approximately 3.2 billion of these subunits, but there are still only four of them. This creates a statistical oddity. In other words, two stretches of DNA generated completely at random, completely independently of one another, would not be zero percent similar, but rather, would be 25 percent similar. Comparative genetics doesn't really help you in this regard.
No.809
>>805Good post! I would like to add some points to your line of reasoning. Even when you compare genomes of different creatures in this world, you see that the greatest amount of genetic information does not equal complexity or progressive transformation into higher states of organization.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/>A conclusion that two (or more) genes or proteins are homologous is a conjecture, not an experimental fact. We would be able to know for a fact that genes are homologous only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms. Since there is no fossil record of these extinct forms, a decision on homology between genes has to be made on the basis of the similarity between them, the only observable variable that can be expressed numerically and correlated with probabilityThere are different mutations like somatic and germ-line. Somatic mutation arises once in every million cell divisions, and so hundreds of millions of somatic mutations must arise in each person. Many somatic mutations have no obvious effect on the phenotype of the organism, because the function of the mutant cell, even the cell itself, is replaced by that of normal cells. However, cells with a somatic mutation that stimulates cell division can increase in number and spread. This type of mutation can give rise to cells with a selective advantage and is the basis for all cancers. But germ-line mutation can be passed to future generations, producing individual organisms that carry the mutation in all their somatic and germ-line cells. When we speak of mutations in multi-cellular organisms we’re usually talking about germ-line mutations. In single-cell organisms there is no distinction between germ-line and somatic mutations, because cell division results in new individuals.
By default, bacteria should mutate more often, developing into new organisms by the millions but you don't see bacteria doing that. Also, when geneticists compare different genes and their components they assume everything originates from one source (some vague, hypothetical, primordial bacterial ancestor in a giant ocean) but in reality there is no explanation as to why it must be only one source. No evidence is presented nor is any rationale supported by this evidence.
No.810
you nerds will say atheism is cringe but then reject Christ
L
M
A
O
No.812
>>14203
Most of those soyboys are operating on instinct; an instinct to follow the herd. Don't take their love of high status words like "science" and "facts" too seriously.
No.813
>>809>By default, bacteria should mutate more often, developing into new organisms by the millions but you don't see bacteria doing that.Speaking of mental gymnastics:
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-organism-that-hasnt-evolved-in-more-than-2-billion-years>Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion yearsPicture this. You are such a hardcore Darwin fanboy, that even though you find bacteria that has undergone trillions of mutations during an unfathomable time span and defied the very principles that define evolution by not transforming into something else, you still think evolution is true. This, my friend, is super ultra mega hyper cope.
No.814
>>813Mutation rates in prokaryotic cells are calculated per cell division and when you look at what causes mutations it is mostly spontaneous replication errors. Replication is amazingly accurate because fewer than one in a billion errors are made in the course of DNA synthesis. So when bacteria propagate themselves they rarely produce new genetic features and when they do it's harmful, genetic mistakes that aren't beneficial to the organism (typical mutation rates for bacterial genes range from about 1 to 100 mutations per 10 billion cells, which is practically nothing). A huge amount of genetic information and an enormous number of cell divisions are required to produce a multicellular adult organism. Even a low rate of error during copying would be catastrophic. A single-celled human zygote contains 6 billion base pairs of DNA. If a copying error occurred only once per million base pairs, 6000 mistakes would be made every time a cell divided and those errors would be compounded at each of the millions of cell divisions that take place in human development.
Neurofibromatosis is a disease that produces numerous tumors of the skin and nerves. It results from mutations in a gene called NF1 and it shows how synthesis of DNA is a complex process, fundamental to cell function and health, in which dozens of proteins, enzymes, and DNA structures take part in the copying of DNA. All you need is a single defective component, such as a DNA polymerase and it will disrupt the whole process and result in severe disease symptoms.
What you need, in order to prove evolution as factual, is impossible amounts of beneficial mutations that luckily enough will make bacteria morph into jellyfish or any other kind of animal but this isn't demonstrable. You can only rely on wishful thinking.
No.815
>>814how will fedoras ever recover? btfo
No.816
>>814https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01620-3>The long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) has become a cornerstone in evolutionary biology that researchers continue to mine for insights. During their 75,000 generations of growth, the bacteria have made huge gains in their fitness — how fast they grow relative to other bacteria — and evolved some surprising traits.https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JB.00831-15>The LTEE isolation of Cit+ mutants has become a textbook example of the power of long-term evolution to generate new species. But, based on our results, E. coli arrives at the same solution to access citrate in days versus years, as originally shown by Hall. In either case, genes involved in the process maintain their same function but show expanded expression by deregulation. Because of this, we argue that this is not speciation any more than is the case with any other regulatory mutant of E. coli.Even the "best" example of "evolution" has been debunked. E. coli have innate ability to change which does not involve any novel traits that appear out of nowhere.
No.819
>>22855
>Doesn't know about electric retard
How nu are u within these tubes friend
No.822
>>820There is no proof for evolution as a whole. Only people outside of academia believes it without questioning anything.
No.823
>>822If you have high school tier knowledge about evolution then it might sound reasonable but otherwise it is kind of silly.
No.824
>>823The average fedora owner is too lazy to do research.
No.826
>>822>no proof for evolution as a wholeExactly. What is even more surprising is that no one knows how old our planet is.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02597188>The potassium-argon method is attractive for dating volcanics since it can be applied to rocks of Pleistocene age and older, thus encompassing important periods of general volcanic activity. However it has been found that dates obtained on whole rocks and on included minerals frequently show gross discordances. Funkhouser and Naughton at the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics used the potassium-argon method to date volcanic rocks from Mount Klauea and got ages of up to 3 000 000 000 years when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957Natur.179..213C/abstract>Where is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?If the earth is billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth's crust should have added a large quantity of helium to its atmosphere. Current diffusion models all Indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth's atmosphere must be quite young.
No.827
>>826>big fucking titties!.jpgNice. Very nice.
No.829
>>826lol, I wonder who has the balls to actually claim to know for sure what the age of the planet is.
No.830
>[ - ]
No.833
>>831You can tell who is scientifically illiterate: the guy who opens a thread full of facts and sources just to hide it because it makes him experience cognitive dissonance.
No.834
>>833the average atheist, in other words
No.836
>>826You have scientists that tell you that the universe is bilions of years old because of some radiation they can detect in the void but ironically they have no real point of reference.
No.837
>>836Is there any man-made measuring system that isn't flawed? I doubt it.
No.838
Science has been put on a pedestal by people that lack any sort of critical thinking. They say they are rational but when someting challenge their world view they become fanatic like muslims and start to spout nonsense and vitriol.
No.839
>>838I agree. You turn a mode of inquiry into a whole set of nihilistic talking points that only reaffirm your own meaningless life.
No.840
>>838Those are the same kind of people that watch George Carlin and laughs at The Big Bang theory.
No.841
>>25594
take your meds
No.842
>>841I think he overdosed on medication.
No.843
>>839Science has become more of a pop culture phenomenon than actual research.
No.845
>>844The average person has no grasp of what science means. They just read that some study said something and accept it no matter what.
No.846
>>845nigger youre on 4chon.me, all anybody does here is believe studies and dailystormer articles
No.847
>>846Just because fokvid spams 100 dailystormer articles a day doesn’t mean we all subscribe to that retardation
No.850
>>849>>27035conspiracy: HDV and FoKvid are the same person (Phantasm)
No.852
>>850Conspiracy: Avid is gay (my source for this theory is that a lot of his posts are homosexually charged)
No.853
Whenever people talk about science I immediately stop listening because it's mostly autistic screeching that gets repeated (Bill Nye the Science Guy and his audience are the worst kind of autists).
No.854
>>853I hate pop science garbage.
No.856
Why even bother with doing an anti-science thing? If you follow the simple rational that everything the Jews have fed us through the education system, government and media is a lie it also follows that science is nothing but lies.
The holocaust isn't real either but I don't waste my life trying to convince people of that either. People are going to believe what they believe until they decide to not believe it anymore. Nothing I do can accelerate or retard that. In fact actively trying to convince people is likely to entrench them further. Either you're smart enough to see through the bullshit eventually or your not. There is no rhetorical fight to be had.
No.857
>>856Why not? Scientists are the new priesthood class in society and pretty much everyone just nod their heads in approval and agree that science is the only truth.
No.858
>>857For exactly the reasons I mentioned
No.859
>>858You sound like an apathetic defeatist. If everyone had your attitude we would all wallow in our own feces and lie on the ground to rot.
No.861
>>860I can wipe it clean for you, with my tongue of course
No.863
>>860Unfortunately that sentiment is all too common among.
No.864
>>859There are many defeatists in our midst and most of them are Internet vagrants with zero purpose in life. They only visit websites like this one because they're bored.
No.865
>>864My purpose in life is to defeat the jews though however
No.866
>>865In that case I wish you the best of luck.
No.867
>>866Thanks i'll need it heh
No.868
When people talk about science you usually see the Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing.
No.871
>>870How do you tear a muscle from sneezing? Damn, he must be weak as hell.
No.872
>>871Niggers are brittle. Sneezing is like a hate crime to them.
No.876
>>873That’s a pretty cool theory.
No.877
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350862574_Psychophysical_interactions_with_a_double-slit_interference_pattern_Exploratory_evidence_of_a_causal_influence>For the experimental data, the outcome supported a pattern of results predicted by a causal psychophysical effecthttps://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1424-4-dean-radin-leena-michel-and-arnaud-delorme-psychophysical-modulation-of-fringe-visibility-in-a-distant-double-slit-optical-system.html>...these results were found to support von Neumann’s conclusion that the mind of the observer is an inextricable part of the measurement process.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287506033_Reassessment_of_an_independent_verification_of_psychophysical_interactions_with_a_double-slit_interference_pattern>Baer's independent analysis confirmed that the optical apparatus used in this experiment was indeed sensitive enough to provide evidence for a psychophysical effect.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258707222_Consciousness_and_the_double-slit_interference_pattern_Six_experiments>The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.Apparently there is a strong aversion within the scientific community regarding how consciousness tends to go beyond regular cause and effect when you measure its influence on its surroundings. The materialistic interpretation of reality fails to explain why these unusual occurences exist and why you can never see a physical link between these events.
When you examine the so called "laws" of physics you begin to realize that they are only applicable to our known corner of this unfathomable universe. How do you prove entropy exists in other parts of the cosmos if you have no clue what the conditions are or how to study them? It all boils down to assumptions and conjecture. How do you know the speed of light doesn't change depending on where you are or if matter behaves the same way everywhere? Physicists can only grasp a tiny fraction of everything that is contained in the giant void.
No.882
>>881Only fedora tippers think materialism is a valid point of view.
No.884
>>883Correct. I distorts your point of view.
No.887
>>885They are called niggers, sir.
No.890
>>889Self-hating oikophobes.
No.893
>>889A h'White nigger once told me that rappers that can free-style are high-IQ geniuses. I assume brainlets believe that you must be really smart if you're well-practiced in anything.
No.896
>>748>When did you realize that science is all about confirmation bias and mental gymnastics?>all aboutThat's not true though.
When the science community (professors, students, universities, laboratories etc.) was much smaller and less commodified (19th and early 20th century) as well as public interest being not nearly as widespread it was still ideal.
Now that the public cares about "science", corporations can just pay the overabundance of "experts" to publish something in their favor to gain trust. Governments will do this too.
Funnily enough, OP is using the standards of empirical science to prove that they're a valuable asset instead of proving the opposite.
No.897
>>896Science is pretty much devoid of meaning today. It's just manipulative skewing.
No.900
>>899Soyence is soyentific.
No.901
Sometimes I've thought about doing independent studies, but I know that probably nobody would read them or care, or whine about the data I'm able to collect with a limited budget.
No.902
>>901>limited budget(you), take care of (you) first. Don't drain yourself of funds that (you) don't have. Support yourself FIRST!!! Everything else will fall into place. Keep tabs on stuff and do what you're able to.
No.903
>>901The thing about research is that it is time consuming. You can do it but it usually is tedious.
No.904
>>903The fedora tipper fears the independent researcher.
No.905
>>904Fedora tippers only listen to what Richard Dawkins think.
No.906
>>905People who obsess over science are usually autistic as fuck.
No.907
>>906This. The most awkward pseudo-intellectual spergs think science is an authority that applies to everything.
No.908
>>906Whats wrong with autists?
No.909
>>908People on the internet are mean.
No.914
>>913Nothing it was just a question, i am autistic
No.916
>>915You will never experience the bliss of a wild bustling imagination, normal people like you are born of satan
No.920
>>919My life is beautiful
No.921
>>920Your vegetable brother is in heaven vomiting all over himself 24/7!
No.922
>>921I am not Smiley! I am curious though as to how you came to such a conclusion, is it the literate nature of my posts?
Infact dont answer me son of kane, you arent worth talking to about anything
No.923
>>922Smiley put down the crack pipe lol.
No.924
>>923Are you going to continue to deflect?
No.925
>>924Deflect from h'what?
No.926
>>925The fact that i stated that i wasnt this person you are talking about
No.930
>>929Pretty much every poster on 4chan.
No.931
>>930The only people posting on cuckchan anymore are feds and AI.
No.936
>>935Science boils down to how much shit you can make up.
No.937
>>936Science has lost its purpose as a tool of discovery. Now it's just mental masturbation for college kids so they can flaunt how their rich parents sent them to prestigious schools.
No.939
>>935I wonder how many scientists actually know that their data is interpreted correctly. Just take the Big Bang. If you find some background radiation in space then how does that prove anything? It’s just radiation.
No.940
>>939If they think it’s correct then it is.
No.941
>>940Pretty much their own way of confirming what they suppose is confirmed.
No.942
Science equals autism.
No.943
>>942Autism makes people wear fedora-hats.
No.944
>>943Wrong, im incredibly autistic and dress well
No.945
>>944You should be studied.
No.946
>>945Shut the fuck up nigger
No.947
>>943Sir, do I need to remind you that everything just got poofed into existence from nothing in a big explosion, we all descend from bacteria in a vast primordial ocean and every human being comes from Africa?! Celebrate diversity and never forget your pronouns.
*tips fedora*
No.948
>>947You are right. Time to chop my dick off and take estrogen pills.
No.949
>>948I love nihilism too. I want to become a coprophiliac homosexual that gets spanked by non-binary furries during intercourse.
No.955
>>952Spatial distortion, dude.
No.958
Current Science is lame anyway but I've heard it said that big part of why psychology studies can't be replicated is because some of the early original research involved ghastly human experiments on kids and stuff. To dossect is to kill and anyone trying to dissect the natural world is operating under malignant influence
No.959
>>958It's mental masturbation.
No.960
>>958Complete bullshit for practically any study done in the last 40 years.
No.962
>>947Good summary of every science obsessed liberal alive today.
No.963
To me science is just glorified heuristics.
No.964
>>963to me i fart abd it smell of shit
No.965
>>963https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00787r000100130003-6>PRECOGNITION - A MEMORY OF THINGS FUTURE?>G. Feinberg>Department of Physics>Columbia University>For example, suppose someone were going to observe an earthquake at noon, and become aware of it precognitively at 11:45. He could write out the sentence "There will be an earthquake at noon", and show it to other people. The recording of this sentence would then itself become a new stimulus, which could be recognized precognitively sometime before it was real, or ideally, more than the 15 minutes warning gained by the imagined precognition. This process could be repeated indefinitely, and so the warning time increased indefinitely.Science has stagnated at this point and is mostly about the ego trips of autistic billionaries that want to make money from space travel.
No.966
>>965What people don't realize is that we're already pushing the limit of what we can do with known physics. There isn't a constant stream of scientific breakthroughs, we're just incrementally throwing more resources at what is fundamentally decades-old technology. Things appear to be advancing due to economic reasons more than anything. As in you need tools to make tools to make tools to make tools, ect, people need to have a use for it, and it needs to be affordable. In my view we're just using a profuse amount of resources to create things that are novel at best, dystopian and antisocial at worst.
No.967
>>965Very interesting! Thanks for the link.
No.968
>>966Scientists usually copy everyone else.
No.970
>>969Ironic how fedora scientists immediately start doing mental gymnastics so they can explain why science isn't confirming what they believe.
No.971
>>969god created eve because adam wouldn't stop having sex with dinosaurs
No.972
>>969Interesting, but the fact that this is getting coverage makes me skeptical. What if that woman was just doing something improperly? Either way it's yet another feild laymans have no way of auditing. Paleontology is another subject the public believes solely on faith. I don't think I can source my own dinosaur bones to shove in acid.
No.973
>>970Cognitive dissonance is unpleasant for the euphoric mind.
No.974
>>969Evolution is easy to disprove. The real issue is how you prove it. Can't say I'm convinced by all the shitty "evidence" that Darwinists try to peddle.
No.975
Evolution is real, we came from gorillas, trust me bro it sounds right yeah
No.976
>>975Where did niggers come from?
No.979
>>978Wtf i love darwin now
No.980
>>975No worries, man. We just have to wait for a trillion years before anything happens. I can't show you but it's obviously true!
No.981
>>980Darwinism in a nutshell.
No.982
>>981Why would it be in a nutshell?
No.988
>>987Heh yeah good luck with that electrical work
No.989
>>988Thomas Eddison invented electricity and he was black so shut the fuck up craqqa.
No.990
>>989Imagine being born in the late 1800s and getting hired at general electric with 0 skills or education, while being taught everything on the job. God, I wish that were me. Instead I probably won't be able to find a job easily even after getting my degree.
No.991
>>990I'd be more concerned about shitting in an outhouse
No.993
>>992I bet it would all go to chinks or something in the best case scenario.
No.994
>>986Atheism makes you depressed. Just look at all the autists watching anime to drown their sorrows.
No.1000
>>875Lol, the lines seem to be a mix between ebonics, basic Japanese, and pseudo-Japanese-like gibberish.
No.1004
>>1003Painted it 100% high.
No.1005
Science is like a drug to atheists. Without it they suffer from withdrawal and get confused. Nothing makes sense if autistic measuring and observing isn’t performed.
No.2097
>>776The out of africa theory has been completely debunked
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15471022 No.2127
>>877This is bullshit. What's more likely? You're telekinetically affecting these particles with your consciousness, or the electric device was interfering with the path of the electrons?
No.2129
>>2127The experiments are really solid and you don't really publish in peer-reviewed science journals unless you've made sure your attempts are foolproof (meaning you try more than one time when doing the experiment). Your reaction is more dogmatic than scientific.
No.2145
>>2142Our society is so upside down
If he had chopped his dick off, or sucked a nigger dick he would be considered a hero
He did something far more harmless than either of these, yet it's evil and he's front page news
No.2146
>>2142>>2145Fucking animals is wrong.
No.2147
>>2146By modern standards you'd think it would be good. Somebody call the ADL for these victims of systemic beast-lover bigotry!
No.2148
>>2146Can you give me a logical reason why? From my perspective I'd rather date a girl that's fucked 12 dogs than 1 nigger
No.2156
>>2150Given that monkeypox is primarily spread through close sexual contact,
why did so many children have it?Particularly within the LGBT community? No.2162
>>2156Children AND pets of gay couples. Really makes you think!
No.2163
>>2162I did forget about that. No wonder it was memory holed so quickly.
No.2164
>>2156Because fags are Satan's children, they do anything that's degenerate
No.2221
>>2150why did anime reaction image posting die out
No.2229
>>2156Monkeypox is as fake as covid.
No.2514
>>2244Don't forget how the buildnings collapsed perfectly downwards and never broke off.
No.2515
>>2514Actually one of the towers snapped a few floors from the bottom, there were people who survived as a result of being in one of the stairwells
No.2587
>>2576Uhm...source?
Also what are the odds that the hispanic data-despite being shown separate-is also lumped into the white data? AFAIK the statistics show hispanics and whites lumped together as an offending class but not as a victim class so there'd be no way to distinguish the two.
No.2602
>>2601Whites are domesticated losers.
No.2605
>>2576White on white is the elephant in the room here.
No.2609
>>2605Kill all "Whites" in every major city tbh.
No.2615
>>2601BOOM BOOM BOOM BIIIIIIIX NOOOOOOD!
No.2627
>>2605Yeah if white maxed out their violence on other races like the niggers and beaners so that would solve just about every problem, the violent crime victimization rate for shitskins would quadruple and before long there wouldn't be any of them left to victimize whites.
but the white on white crime stats would be even more skewed after all the shitskins were done away with
No.2859
>>2858Interesting. Especially since crystal oscillators are still widely used. Maybe it is alien technology after all LOL.
No.2869
>>2858intredesting
wonder if any modern studies have been done on this phenomenon
No.2880
>>2858Is the book any good?
No.3056
>>2860Good lord
>>3054Well duh, heh
No.3199
>>2858Weird. Looks like something is defying the laws of physics.
No.3280
>>3199Agreed. I've never seen anything like it either.
No.3472
>>3280Science doesn’t have an answer to everything.
No.3611
>>3472https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000096>Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence SpaceThis Japanese study determined that you would need an unfathomable amount of trials to acquire the wild-type function of the g3p minor coat protein of the Fd bacteriophage and it concluded that functional protein sequences are ridiculously rare.
They had to take a defective bacteriophage that could not survive in the wild due to the fact that they removed the most crucial component to its survival (the gp3 minor coat protein) and put it inside a bacterial host in order to let it duplicate itself.
After 7 generations the bacteriophage stagnated. After 20 generations, they saw negligible changes. Beyond 20 generations they needed huge amounts of trials to even come close to the adaptive fitness in the original protein. Without the g3p minor coat protein the bacteriophage cannot infect other organisms and as a result dies out. To summarize: the bacteriophage never adapted and developed its own gp3 minor coat protein.
Bacteriophages are not able to self-replicate because they are primitive (a human cell contains billions of base pairs while a bacteriophage has tens of thousands) and thus they need external material so they can perpetuate their existence. The experiment eliminates all obstacles such as environmental factors and even host scarcity meaning the defective bacteriophage has optimal chances for survival because they select only those that show the most changes. Despite all this they couldn't reproduce the g3p minor coat protein. In short: in nature a defective bacteriophage do not survive and reproduce and they certainly do not produce proteins through uninterrupted contact with the same host.
Evolution, in other words, is not proven. When science disproves a theory then the Darwinists will ignore it and say it has no meaning or relevance.
Science, according to fedora lords, is something that has some kind of natural bias towards Darwinism.
No.3646
>>3611The Fd bacteriophage only codes for about 11 proteins so there is not much room for variation. It means that evolutionary speaking you can't disrupt the protein sequences through mutation because they're not able to withstand too much change because they are so highly intertwined. If you do then the bacteriophage would instantly stop existing.
Quite a Darwinian predicament.
