PerseusWizardry
No bio...
User ID: 1815
PerseusWizardry
11mo ago
Like, what is the natural process that results in the probabilistic construction of a jet engine?
Can I not just as easily ask “what is the natural process that results in the probabilistic construction of a self-replicating molecular organism?”
What is the evidence these two things are of similar likelihood?
You seem to think the jet engine is vastly less likely, so apparently you think there is evidence that bears on this question. What is that evidence?
PerseusWizardry
11mo ago
Suppose you were sentenced to death by firing squad but a thousand marksmen ten feet away missed their shot. Would you say you don’t have to explain how this happened (by design, presumably—a conspiracy not to kill you), because being in a position to ask it requires already existing?
PerseusWizardry
11mo ago
From the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
“The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process“
That sounds very complicated. Many different parts are involved with many different mechanisms, which had to be in place at the right time in many different stages. By “A relatively simple reaction that managed to propagate” are you imagining some kind of one-step jump to a self-replicating organism?
Your first bullet point only functions as an explanation of fine tuning if we assume in advance that the (or “a”) multiverse hypothesis is true. It’s unlikely that I would result from my parent’s act of conception, but billions of acts of conception were happening before I was conceived. But we don’t have an analogous knowledge of there being billions and billions of universes with different parameters and physical laws, exhausting enough of the possibilities to eventually create life.
Should I explain why I find the multiverse hypothesis less plausible than theism as an explanation of fine tuning, or do you already agree with me that it is?
Your second bullet point calls for some subject matter expertise that I obviously don’t have. You mention that RNA can be self-catalyzing. I suppose this raises the question of “just how hard would it be to create RNA by chance circumstances.” How complex is RNA in terms of number of parts and mechanisms?
To your third bullet point, I’m not as surprised that organisms which were already created in such environments can now live in them as I am by the suggestion that they were created in the first place. I agree that this is evidence in favor of their possibly being created in them, though, of course, because if it was impossible for an organism to live in such an environment, it would be impossible for them to be created in them. But anyway, I’m not sure this is a strong item of evidence in favor of abiogenesis and don’t weight it very heavily.
I don’t understand this sentence:
“ of the 402 proteins which have been highly conserved in bacterial metabolism, 380 of them are highly stable at the pressure, temperature, and pH of these mineral-emitting thermal vents.”
What are proteins “which are highly conserved in bacterial metabolism?” And why is this significant?
I would love to chat with your friend, please consider giving me a point of contact. (If it matters, I’m not a Christian, I’m a weak, almost-reserving-judgement-but-not-quite deist with a sense that there is something to the cosmic fine tuning argument for life.)
PerseusWizardry
11mo ago
The minimally replicating natural system would need:
-
Some way of reproducing dynamically in response to mutations. It can’t just be able to reproduce itself perfectly, but otherwise not at all; it needs an information carrier that can vary the assembly instructions in ways that would result in multiple different possible viable offspring. Otherwise, evolution would’ve never happened, because there would only have ever been one organism, or the one organism would have died very early on.
-
Some machinery for assembly of parts,
-
a way of reading the instructions,
-
An outer membrane that holds all of this stuff together,
-
A way to catalyze it’s own chemical processes
How is RNA sufficient for all of the above?
PerseusWizardry
11mo ago
From the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
“The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process“
That sounds very complicated. Many different parts are involved with many different mechanisms, which had to be in place at the right time in many different stages.
PerseusWizardry
10mo ago
I would like to request an effort post in which all of the dubious medical claims made by Robert F Kennedy Jr. in his recent appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience are examined, if false, refuted.
Moonshot Personal Growth Idea
There are a lot of smart, hyper-informed people on here (don't be bashful). Each probably have 1-5 topics they know A LOT about, who could deliver a knowledgable spiel over voice or text without much effort and intelligently field any number of follow-up questions. So it occurs to me there might be a big educational opportunity for me here if I can capture some of this low-hanging fruit.
I don't know much about American politics, health, business, etc., but eagerly want to know more, and I'm happy to talk over discord/phone/voice or text depending on your preferences. Some topics to jog your brain; if it strikes you that "hey, I actually got obsessed with topic 23 one time and learned everything you could possibly know about it over a 6 month period," please consider reaching out to me. I'll adopt a position indicated by either "pro" or "con" provisionally just to inspire engagement (my actual views here are very low-confidence and "pro/con" means something more like "I've heard interesting arguments for this side of the issue that I want an intelligent person who knows more than I do to explain the merits of to me" than "this is what I believe.")
-
“The current level of military spending is justified.” Pro
-
“The typical white male is utterly blameless for the circumstances of the African American community” Pro
-
"The growth of transgender identity and bisexuality have the character of a social contagion" Pro (Is bisexuality created or only revealed by the environment? Is anyone bisexual because of encouragement, or is the absence of discouragement the only environmental factor that does anything to affect rates of ID?) (Caplan)
-
“Asian romantic preferences are morally permissible.” Pro
-
“De facto interrogational torture by the US is justified.” Pro
-
"Extraterrestrial life is the best explanation of some UFO sightings" Con
-
“Any minimum wage fails a purely utilitarian cost benefit test due to disemployment effects.” Pro
-
"Joe Biden's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Would Be Disastrous," (Or: Cost benefit analysis puts several other environmental causes ahead of climate change.)
-
"Feminism is bad for women." (a la Bryan Caplan)
-
"Conventional medicine barely makes us healthier" (as seen in Robin Hanson's case for radical medical skepticism, from the RAND Health insurance experiment to the replication crisis http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/feardie.pdf)
-
"Dietary research is of such poor quality that we know almost nothing about whether any given major diet fad is truly the ideal diet." (Pro) (I would be willing to take the even stronger position that we don't even know ANYTHING about the right diet just to see what a smart, informed person would say in response to better calibrate my reasoning on this issue)
-
"Most of life is a prestige-signaling game./Social status is the closest thing to a one-variable explanation for everything, and does far better than the traditional rival models like sex or money."
-
"Diversity is our strength." Pro
-
"Society does not clearly treat one sex more unfairly than the other." (Pro)
-
"IQ is real and a major determinant of social outcomes" Pro
-
"Racial groups differ in socially relevant ways for genetic reasons." Con
-
“Capitalists deserve their success.” Pro
-
"Money doesn't really buy happiness." Pro
-
“The solution to traffic is congestion pricing (tolls)” Pro
-
"Actions taken by the Biden Admin during the Covid pandemic were generally justified." Not enough info to sway either way
-
“We should deregulate construction completely.” Pro
-
“Workers are not underpaid in competitive business environments.” Pro
-
Question: How do taxes work, and how SHOULD they work?
-
“Affirmative action is immoral/harmful.” Pro
-
“State-mandated wealth redistribution is immoral./Wealth inequality is not a serious social problem” Pro
-
“Abortion is morally permissible.” Pro
-
“We should put America First” pro
-
“It is not possible to be a good criminal defense lawyer AND a good person.” Pro
-
“We should privatize everything.” Pro
-
“The poor generally deserve to be poor.” “American wealth inequality is generally fair.” (as seen in remarks made by Caplan re: the so-called "success sequence")
-
“Gender is essentially biological.” Pro (Tomas Bogardus, Alex Byrne)
-
“We should remove confederate monuments.” Con
-
“We should not provide trigger warnings/safety culture actually harms mental health.” Pro (Jonathan Haidt)
-
“We Should Stop Talking about Privilege” pro
-
“Immigration is Not a Human Right.” Con
-
“The Death Penalty is Immoral” pro
-
“The typical meat eater does nothing wrong.” Pro
-
“Political correctness is just politeness.” Con
-
“There are no positive rights; There is no right to healthcare or education.” Pro
-
“Utilitarianism is a bad moral theory.” Pro
-
“It isn’t morally wrong to misgender a trans person.” Pro
-
“Artificial intelligence is not an existential risk.” Pro
-
“We should not have gun control.” Pro
-
“We should segregate intimate public spaces by biological sex.” Or: “it is not morally wrong to do so.” Pro
-
“It’s morally wrong for the average voter to vote; we should try to decrease voter turnout.” Pro
-
“It’s morally permissible to racially profile.” Pro
-
“Psychological egoism is false.” Pro or con
-
“Ethical egoism is false.” Pro
-
“Racial discrimination is not inherently immoral.” Pro
-
“Businesses may racially select their customers.” Pro
-
“Equality of opportunity is morally undesirable.” Pro
-
“Mixed martial arts don’t violate anyone’s rights.” Pro
-
“We are morally obligated to tip servers.” Pro
-
“Hazing should be permitted on college campuses.” Pro
-
“It is just to punish criminals for the sake of causing suffering to people who deserve it.” Pro or con, preferably con
-
“If we ought to be taxed more, we ought to donate our excess income.” (“Rich socialists/distributive egalitarians are hypocrites.”) pro
-
“It’s morally permissible to sell oneself into permanent slavery.” Pro
-
“There is no duty to hire the most qualified applicant.” Pro
-
“We should completely deregulate the provision of healthcare services.” Pro
-
“We should not require occupational licensing by law (for doctors, plumbers, or lawyers).” Pro
-
“Workplace quality and safety regulations are bad for workers.” Pro
-
“We should not dispense racial reparations to the black community.” Pro
-
Con “alcoholics (and drug addicts in general) are nonresponsible victims”
-
Pro: “Race is biologically real”
-
Pro:“The rich pay their fair share”
-
“Exploitation isn’t wrong.” Pro
-
“Free market pricing is a better distributor than queuing” Pro
-
“Price gouging is fine.” Pro
-
“The casting couch is just prostitution” Pro
-
“Affirmative Action is systemically racist” Pro
-
“Colleges are guilty of negligent advertising” pro
-
"We should we abolish civil rights law" (Richard Hanania)
-
“Gender is essentially biological” pro
TL;DR Looking for someone to explain American politics to me, preferably over discord voice. Especially interested in topics like happiness, relationship success, American public policy (esp. healthcare and the budget)
From the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
“The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process“
That sounds very complicated. Many different parts are involved with many different mechanisms, which had to be in place at the right time in many different stages.
More options
Context Copy link