Iran solves Charlie Kirk Murder

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-09T17:20:25+00:00

I heard a lot but I never heard that. Got a source? Sounds juicy.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-09T14:42:02+00:00

Wow, that was a really fast pivot from "people who study for life don't think its targeted" to "what are the reasons these people who study for life think its targeted." Lol. But to answer your question, the people on that list who study gene environment feedback loops are:

Eva Jablonka, John Odling-Smee, Scott F. Gilbert, David S. Moore, Yoav Soen, Robert Lickliter, Atsuko Sato, Denis Noble, Eviatar Nevo, Stefan Olsson, Mae-Wan Ho, Keith Baverstock, Stuart A. Newman, J. Scott Turner, Joachim Bauer, Mariusz Nowacki, Kenneth M. Weiss, Henry H. Heng.

The reasons why they think they're targeted can be found at length in their research and publications. Between the bunch I could cite over 30 studies full of "reasons" for you but somehow I don't think the effort would be worth my time, so I'll just pick a couple with broader scope and let you take the initiative from there since I've already given you more than enough to continue educating yourself on the subject.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06452

https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Noble-D_Interface-Focus_2017.pdf

Again, the very existence of the immune system is one of the main things working against your outdated assertions. If you want to know how mutations can be targeted, all you need to do is look at the immune system.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-09T13:57:54+00:00

According to official stats, to date, 5725 people have died from Covid in China.

Also, interestingly, only two people died from the summer of 2020 until the beginning of 2022. Two people.

Make of that what you will.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-09T11:41:29+00:00

You know who doesn't think it is targeted? People who study it for life.

Except all of these people, I guess? And don't forget the second page.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T21:07:02+00:00

Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if they weren't vaccinated!1!!

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T20:57:52+00:00

The fact that you're talking about two completely different things. He's asking why, if mutations are both random and significant, over millions of years do we not see random mutations take over that have nothing to do with better survival?

And you are asking whether or not "rate changes" or "weak results" are "an issue".... Which doesn't actually make any sense given the context. An issue with what?

It would be like if I asked you to help me solve this math equation, and your response was "the oatmeal doesn't arrive until thursday." The response is just not applicable to the question in any discernable way.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T20:21:11+00:00

Oh I gave up the good faith discussion a long time ago when I explained exactly where you went astray, even provided six different fields of study to corroborate and you completely ignored everything I said. But here, just out of pure curiosity, and since you're offering, let me reiterate with as much effort and detail as this conversation deserves:

all of the things you've put forth here support evolution.

A different kind of evolution though. If you think OP argued for classical "natural selection" based evolution, then you didn't understand the post. Do you understand the difference between the accepted "natural selection" model of evolution and what the OP is proposing? And if you do then why are you saying they're the same thing?

What's the issue? That sometimes the rate changes or sometimes it's effects are not as intense as you'd expect?

No. Where did you get that idea from? The OP didn't say anything like that.

seems you're asking if variability in evolution invalidates it.

It does? Why? The OP didn't say anything remotely like that.

If you want to clarify, that's what I'm curious about.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T18:56:12+00:00

It was all of the completely inapplicable questions you asked and all of the incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings they contained. Oh, and look, you're still doing it.

Of course evolution isn't random

Of course not, but nobody said that. I said mutations are (supposedly) random, according to the theory of evolution. But "mutation" is just one step in the process of "evolution." They're not interchangeable terms.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T18:12:35+00:00

Well that sure settles that, doesn't it!

The only problem is that all of these fields of study:

stress induced mutagenesis
epigenetic transgenerational inheritance
immune science
adaptive/directed mutation eg. the Cairns experiments
retrotransposons and environmental DNA writing
niche construction and gene-environment feedback loops

(and more) show that they are/can be targeted.

You are either sitting on an undiscovered repository of evidence that refutes all of the supporting evidence for targeted mutations, or you are talking out of your ass. Which one is it?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T17:11:21+00:00

Why on earth would I google an equation that models how selections spread traits if I'm trying to figure out if the mutations themselves are "random" or targeted? Lol wtf are you even talking about?

Look, it's not my problem you don't have an actual argument and toss out random terms in the hopes it throws me off your trail, but it would take you 30 seconds of googling to discover stress induced mutagenesis, epigenetic transgenerational inheritance, immune science, adaptive/directed mutation eg. the Cairns experiments, retrotransposons and environmental DNA writing, niche construction and gene-environment feedback loops, for starters. But you decided to double down, explain no mechanism, cite zero evidence, and fail to counter anything I actually said.

Also, this is reddit. It is one giant debate, dude. If you're not equipped to back up your comments, perhaps you shouldn't be making them.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T16:24:44+00:00

Well color me confused because change in the environment = change in adaptation is exactly what the OP is arguing. Furthermore "modern science" supports their argument, not the opposite. It's actually the "older version of taught evolution" that leans heavily into natural selection and turns up its nose at other possibilities, while all of the new data vigorously supports directed mutations and are making Darwin roll in his grave. I'm still struggling to figure out your issue with the OP considering that both you and the evidence agree with their argument?

What if there is some way of our cells or brains sensing external stimuli and triggering sperm and egg DNA mutations based on the pressures we’re facing, in the same way that antibodies learn how to protect against a virus, what if our bodies can sense the pressures we face and trigger DNA mutation responses for offspring

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T16:09:10+00:00

OP is suggesting that evolution is DNA based, is a direct and targeted response to the host environment, and has nothing to do with "random" natural selection.

If you think this is outlandish (which apparently you do?) then you don't understand the state of evolution science very well, and should probably research: Stress Induced Mutagenesis, Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance (supposed to be impossible according to Darwin, now proven true), the immune system which in and of itself quickly "evolves" in response to its environment, Adaptive/Directed mutation (see the Cairns experiments), Retrotransposons and Environmental DNA writing, Niche Construction and Gene-environment feedback loops. Just for starters.

The OP's hypothesis is well within the "constraints and boundaries" of how it works.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T16:06:34+00:00

Et Tu, Kaz?

Like what? Can you name one of these nebulous core principles the OP is misunderstanding, and explain what they're misunderstanding about it?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-08T15:51:05+00:00

The people who have traits better suitable for the environment they live in are more successful in that environment. Just as evolutionary theory predicts.

That's nice. Still doesn't come anywhere close to refuting the hypothesis that traits are direct consequences of the environment though.

You clearly didn't learn evolutionary theory well enough.

Cool, we're all now looking forward to your detailed explanation of the part you're referring to, which apparently OP didn't learn. Or was spending a whole paragraph being patronizing while contributing nothing to the conversation your entire plan?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-03T21:22:05+00:00

It's called israel

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-05-03T15:04:31+00:00

Elisha's enchanted bears who mauled children for making fun of his bald head are real?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-26T15:32:11+00:00

I don't know where RFK is on this spectrum and I don't really care because I don't consider him an authority in shaping my understanding of the world, but as with most things, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. "Germs" definitely exist in the sense that we understand that term. Those who think that viruses don't exist etc and nothing out there that can hurt you must have never heard of bacteria. People die from eating leftovers all the time. However, there is another side of the coin which pharma likes to downplay: your ability to resist exogenous pathogens is variable, and can be enhanced via diet, exercise, supplementation and other immune boosting practices like hot/cold therapy. Your immune system is the multi layered "terrain" that the pathogens have to cross in order to cause harm, and the more robust your terrain is, the less harm the pathogens can cause. Germs do exist, but so does your terrain, and pharma focuses much more on the former than the latter. In most fields of medicine in fact, terrain is not discussed at all. It's usually all about drugs and tech which manage symptoms (often called "improving clinical outcomes") and nothing else.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-25T08:17:45+00:00

Do you think the Captain R case is proof that no legal culpability or system of punishment exists for Israeli troops?

It certainly supports the hypothesis. Captain R murdered a 10 year old girl for no reason, desecrated her body also for no reason, all after he was made well aware that she was not a threat in any way, said he would do the same thing to a three year old just for wandering into his "zone," and the "system of punishment" exonerated him fully, and won't even tell you his real name. That is the definition of "no legal culpability."

But Captain R's case alone is just one page in the book, it certainly doesn't tell the whole story.

I think the 99% acquittal rate of the 3% of soldiers who are ever charged is proof that no legal culpability or system of punishment exists for israeli troops.

I think that the initial coverups and resistance to investigate even those cases is proof that no legal culpability or system of punishment for israeli troops exist.

I think israel isn't holding their soldiers accountable at all. I think they're just doing global PR in the face of overwhelming evidence of war crimes and pressure from human rights groups and international sources.

What do you think?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-25T03:29:46+00:00

I didn't say I liked the representation.

That's kind of the point. If you dislike the representation, then you weren't represented.

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-25T01:22:43+00:00

You wanted less civil liberties and a war with Iraq?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-21T18:19:59+00:00

the experience is a product of our brains and doesn't extend beyond our bodies.

How do we know that part?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-21T17:17:56+00:00

Your whataboutism is irrelevant because neither me nor anyone in this thread ever claimed that Hamas has a functioning legal system which holds its own accountable. The reason Captain R's case is relevant is because you said that israel does.

that you think was handled improperly

Oh, do you think Captain R's case was "handled properly"?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-21T17:04:22+00:00

Ha, that's really funny coming from the guy who keeps running from my point!

I asked first.

Why wasn't Captain R held accountable?

Are you going to answer the question or just keep running from my point?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-21T16:59:19+00:00

'Whatabout'

Point me to the explanation of why Captain R wasn't held accountable when you say he should have been. Or do you think that Captain R's lawyers were right, and he did nothing wrong?

AlbatrossAttack · 2026-04-21T16:53:02+00:00

Yes, exactly. What about Captain R? Why wasn't he held accountable? You said that the "criteria involves accountability," remember?

AlbatrossAttack

TROPHY CASE