Sam Harris is the gloomiest person in the world. He was practically hysterical about Covid, and has still not revised his views on that topic - rather like somebody else around here.
Haven't you had enough of apocalyptic thinking?
geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .
“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.
there’s no way to make that happen.
Sam Harris is the gloomiest person in the world. He was practically hysterical about Covid, and has still not revised his views on that topic - rather like somebody else around here.
Haven't you had enough of apocalyptic thinking?
geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .
“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.
there’s no way to make that happen.
I've read Pinker's books and I disagree with the idea that he is complacent. On the contrary he insists that there is absolutely no reason to assume that the gains of the past will not be lost unless we are vigilant.
He is the perfect antidote to the JW (and SBF) - doom and gloom - mentality.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
In all these conversations about evolution it's worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of theists have no problems with it.
It's only a relatively small minority of fundamentalists - and most Muslims - who refuse to accept reality.
It's is a common issue for ex-JWs due to years of indoctrination and woeful science education.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
That's interesting stuff thanks DJW
geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .
“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.
there’s no way to make that happen.
Can't we just pull out the plug?
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
the theory of evolution is that it cannot explain how the mechanism of evolution evolved
On the contrary that is specifically the very thing that Darwin did explain correctly.
Evolution is nothing more than differences in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool.
Like drawing a random straight flush thousands or billions of times in a row
The OP of this thread illustrates why your commonly held opinion is entirely mistaken. It's absolutely NOTHING like that.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
DJW - The detailed understanding of the specific genetic mutations that tweek light sensitivity is really amazing. It's a brilliant example of science at its best.
I don't know the answer to your question about human differences. It's entirely possible. The thing to keep in mind is that mutations are random but selection is not. In the case of birds an ability to see particular colours has a selective advantage so it tends to survive into future generations. A human who has a similar mutation is no more likely to prosper or have more offspring than one who doesn't, So this mutation might disappear just as quickly or continue for a few generations.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
Your objection is answered in full in the OP
carried out in italy.. i wonder what jw's who are pressured to get jabbed would think of this post mortem examination report.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdjzavxzm98.
autopsy report: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393x/11/1/142.
Riley - Why are excess deaths 31% above average in the UK - week after week after week? Why is a similar picture being reported all over the world? Why are high rates of sudden death affecting all age groups?
It's not the people asking the questions who are embarrassing.