I can see that my carefully crafted answers to your questions have had the intended effect.
This has always puzzled me though: why do we find it so hard to accept that we not above nature in any way? That we are simply an animal just like any other? What is so bad about cows, dogs, chimp, bonobos etc that we want to distance ourselves from them as much as possible? Why do we want to believe that we're special in some sort of way, essentially, when it's amply clear that we absolutely are not?
The only real way of answering such questions is science. Hard work alright but nothing else can provide us with a satisfactory answer. Encourage whoever you come across to take up science. The more people we throw at a problem, the higher the chances of finding a solution.
-daniela Feel free to share. As you know, I am not inclined to accept much else other than equations and theory backed by observation, but many other folk on here enjoy other forms of 'proof'.
It will not be answered because you've given up looking for the answer already. What if Alexander Fleming or Albert Einstein had the same attitude as you? Where would humanity be today?
Yes, chances are overwhelmingly that our DNA has come about by itself. There is a bacterium (mycoplasma mycoides) who has only 525 genes apparently. That's really simple. It is one of the simplest know forms of life today. The thing about it is that it is proof that life does not need a complex DNA molecule to be viable. We can therefore extrapolate that simple DNA molecules emerged spontaneously earlier on, and these eventually evolved into more complex ones as life became more complex. Certainly, we need more evidence to proclaim that as an unassailable scientific fact, so expect some tweaks along the way; however, this explanation is far more likely than any other non-scientific explanation for the emergence of DNA out there.
I wont elaborate but we could say that the big bang was triggered by what are known quantum fluctuations. Nothing is static at the subatomic level, even nothing itself. There's energy in nothing, for example. Good to point out that this is a work in progress and we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, but we'll get there.
No one and nothing is maintaining this planet. Life has emerged (through spontaneous chemical reactions etc) and evolved to thrive on this planet and under its conditions. Basically, it's life that has adapted to the planet and not the planet to life.
Certainly, it could be that the conditions on other planets preclude life as we know it or in some other form, but that does not mean that this planet was created specifically to support life or us for that matter. Planet earth is the way it is because the laws of physics allow for such an eventuality, and the way this planet is happens to support life.
We know one thing for certain: the probability of life emerging on a planet is not zero. We know that because we are here. Now, lets take a worse case scenario. Lets assume that the probability of life emerging on a planet (any planet) to be very small. Given that there are so many planets in the universe of all shapes and sizes, then we can safely state that the chances of life emerging on some planet somewhere in the universe are very good. And guess what? It did right here on Earth. As a result, you and I are able to have a conversation about it.
Now, tell me: isn't this kinda of stuff the only thing more exciting than a massive pair of human mammaries?
That's certainly the case. However, I think it is safe to assume that the west is engaged in a propaganda war (nowadays also called misinformation war apparently) as we speak. They know very well that Russia is nowhere near as sealed as China, for example, and thus information trickles in from the west all the time. I suspect that someone behind the scenes is really hoping the Russian people make a move of some sort.
I know nothing about this particular case, however, there is a bit of a tendency on here to ridicule someone who has opened up and shared with the audience on here. I don't think that that's a good thing.
The truth is that total free speech, like any other thing 'total' is not a good thing. Misinformation is a real problem. It has been weaponised in wars before and is now by the Russians. It has been politicised by donald dump to sway elections and incite riots. It has been used to hamper public health efforts such as the vaccination campaign. Misinformation can cause havoc.
Basically, imo, anyone should have the right to make his/her voice heard, but he/she must also be held accountable for what he/she says.
No, I am not worried. That's exactly what I would expect when AI does not work, which is very often. What's the next step? Well, you dump your code and start all over again. 'Destroy the robots' is another, catchier, way of saying simply that.
Btw, a language that humans could not understand ha? How do they know it was a language in the first place? That said, it may very well have been. I've had machines 'inventing' their own signaling protocols using a simple desktop machine and Python. What's the big deal? The big deal is that you read 'FB'. If it's FB who's done something, then that something must be a big deal. That is one of the dangers of forming your opinion base merely on newspaper headlines I'm afraid.
Why not? Everyone, including the chippy can do research. If he's got an opinion, then he's done it aye?
Do you know what that someone is called? A (real) expert.
History takes as much expertise as heart surgery. It's just a different subject.
On here, the vast majority of us are NOT experts but some of us (including myself) quote experts, others quote laymen or charlatans. That's the difference between our opinions on here imo.
ok. Lets say that a heart surgeon is of the opinion that you need immediate open heart surgery to save your life. Lets also say that Mr nobody at the chippy round the corner has a different opinion. He feels that you don't need it. What would you do? Would you have the surgery or not?
After all, everyone can do research and expert are just people trying to belittle others innit?
Basically, price is objective (in principle) and value is totally subjective, agreed. Your dog may cost a couple hundred quid to buy. It's value to you may be infinite or nothing depending on whether you love it or hate it. Now, according to you, God loves his dog. Why should the dog love itself just because of that, though?
I have my favourite race of woman, yeah. Most people seem to. Some even write it on their profile on here. Discriminating based on race (or anything else) when it comes to dating seems to be socially acceptable.
Yes. As a kid, I was an uber nerd. In keeping with that, I was fascinated by dinosaurs. I would have loved to have had the super power of time travel to go back in time and watch them hunt, feeding etc.
You might think that you are anonymous online but chances are that you can be tracked down relatively easily. Your ISP knows who you are and where you've been online and how long etc, for example. Even the so called 'dark web' and the use of technology such as Onion etc do not give any guarantee of anonymity irrespective of what they might claim.
Basically, you think you are anonymous online but you're not really.
I'll never understand this fixation with giving unrelated names to stuff. If it is a meal you've had at 5pm, why do we call it dinner or supper rather than 'fivepmmeal' for example?
RE: THE MEANING OF LIFE
That wouldn't solve the conundrum though. If life got here in ice comets in some form or another, then how did it begin wherever it originated?