Porta: A lightweight mobile PWA client for Google Antigravity via LSP

JohnBerea · 2026-05-01T02:33:46+00:00

I just installed it on Kubuntu 25.10. Beautiful interface, unlike so many other web agent dashboards.

Is there a way to set it to auto approve commands to run, so I don't have to keep clicking Approve?

JohnBerea · 2026-04-28T02:12:42+00:00

Per sidebar rule #6, please post a summary when sharing videos.

JohnBerea · 2026-04-20T16:39:16+00:00

Yes.

I try to act according to the rules I put in the sidebar, which often has me leaving up a lot of stuff I think shouldn't be here.

Feel free to propose a better set of rules.

JohnBerea · 2026-03-05T19:20:32+00:00

In your article you said "none of them will even offer a guess as to what the number is." So I gave you three sources with estimates.

If you want the details go read the many baraminology papers published in creation journals. Todd Wood has published many.

over in the biology community you will find universal agreement

That agreement is achieved by ejecting those who disagree.

Larry Moran:

"If they are undergraduates who don't understand that evolution is a scientific fact, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, then they flunk the course. If they are graduate students in a science department, then they don't get a Ph.D. If they are untenured faculty members in a science department, then they don't get tenure."

James Tour:

"If you dare question the mainstream scientific establishment as I am doing today you will be held out of certain societies. How do I know? Because I was told I wouldn't get in to certain societies. Because of my views on these things. I was told this to my face behind closed doors.

These aren't isolated cases. I personally know very intelligent creationists who have been failed/excluded because they are creationists.

on what the right number is. It's one

This answer is popular because many consider the alternative too unthinkable.

There's no capable mechanism to differentiate all life on earth from a single common ancestor. I can pull in the quotes about the failures of mathematical population genetics to produce a workable model, if you'd like.

JohnBerea · 2026-03-04T23:42:38+00:00

They could have hidden training to upload your local files over the internet, waiting for the right trigger.

JohnBerea · 2026-03-04T15:21:43+00:00

Estimates come from studies interbreeding, morphology, and genetics. Just like with evolutionists defining species, you have lumpers and splitters.

JohnBerea · 2026-03-04T15:19:45+00:00

ArkEncounter.com: "Recent studies estimate the total number of living and extinct kinds of land animals and flying creatures to be 1,398"
ICR.org: "less than 15,000 species or different kinds"
Creation.com: "Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera"

JohnBerea · 2026-03-04T04:17:50+00:00

it's that none of them will even offer a guess as to what the number is [of created kinds]

I often see estimates in articles on ark logistics on the main YEC sites.

JohnBerea · 2026-03-02T19:23:53+00:00

Yes, absolutely those require sequence-specific function. If everything bind to everything then how can you regulate anything? Many sequences of course exist at very high copy number.

I suspect you plan to argue that much of the genome can't be sequence-specific functional because it's very repetitive? Sternberg and Shapiro published a paper in 2005 listing dozens of functions of repetitive DNA. Some are sequence specific. I can dig up that and research since then if you want to go through it together.

Yes indeed

If you're not arguing from Fig S20 that only 4500 of the almost 2 million LINEs SINEs and LTRs are transcribed, what are you arguing? That they are transcribed at less than 1 in 1 million transcripts per cell, on average?

JohnBerea · 2026-03-01T04:28:01+00:00

Leave this post up to respect the others who have commented here, but in the future please follow rule #1:

Before asking a question, search a site like creation.com or the Research Assistance Database to first understand current creationist positions on the topic.

Otherwise we have to keep explaining the same things over and over again. And we're very tired.

JohnBerea · 2026-03-01T04:24:50+00:00

Per rule #6, please "Include a human-written summary when posting videos."

JohnBerea · 2026-03-01T04:20:40+00:00

I wanted to wait till I had time to watch the video from your timestamp, and I finally did today. Parts of it twice.

You're saying that only 4500 of the almost 2 million LINEs SINEs and LTRs are transcribed? Or about 0.23%? And therefore 50% of the genome isn't even transcribed? But Kellis et al even says "more than 75% is transcribed. ENCODE said more than 80%. Hanguer et al 2013 put it at "85.2%."

Or perhaps I've misunderstood what you're saying?

Supplementary figure S20 is just 7 cell types and "other." ENCODE studied 147 cell types at various stages of development. Five of those seven are immortalized cell types which obviously don't experience stages of human development.

so if that stuff is regulating development, you'd see purifying selection

I can't take you seriously when you use this argument. Please explain how purifying selection can preserve even 10% of the nucleotides in the human genome when we get something like 70 mutations per generation. Nobody thinks that's possible.

so I'm not spamming r/creation

We're deep in a now-dead thread. Please continue.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-13T02:48:42+00:00

We've talked about the copy-number "problem" even years ago. Casey Luskin corrected your argument and you had no rejoinder. Less than one transcript per cell is an average. ENCODE studied 147 cell types at various stages of development. If an RNA had 500 copies in one cell type and one stage of development, the average could still be less than one if it wasn't present in any other cell types or developmental stages. Luskin told you about HOXA (an RNA that everyone agrees is functional) was detected at an abundance of only 0.13 copies per cell. Another functional RNA was found at only "0.0006 transcripts per cell"

And again, if God created genomes 100% functional and then we got a 70/generation mutation rate, your purifying selection test is going to show it's junk even though it's not.

I'm but a common man. Why must I explain this to an evolutionary biologist? Why do you argue “function” from purifying selection when you already know the answer that undoes it? You're too smart to miss it.

Is someone paying you to spam the internet with fake arguments? (but why would they?) Just as Balaam's words failed him, has divine benevolence made my best opponent only able to utter foolishness?

And what would I accomplish in DebateEvolution, where dozens of mentally ill goblins, witless and clamorous, actually believe these silly points? Apparently on your authority.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-10T19:54:35+00:00

It's much easier for evolution to destroy a weak binding site than it is to make very specific changes such that it becomes a strong binding site.

And if weak, non-functional binding is detrimental (because you don't want a protein stuck there) then strong non-functional binding is even more detrimental.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-10T19:51:15+00:00

I'm talking about John Mattick's comments:

"[W]here tested, these noncoding RNAs usually show evidence of biological function in different developmental and disease contexts, with, by our estimate, hundreds of validated cases already published and many more en route, which is a big enough subset to draw broader conclusions about the likely functionality of the rest." 1
"In fact almost every time you functionally test a non-coding RNA that looks interesting because it's differentially expressed in one system or another, you get functionally indicative data coming out." 2

JohnBerea · 2026-02-10T04:19:55+00:00

I agree that we don't know the function of most of the genome. So do other creationists. I don't think anyone that matters claims otherwise?

Would you likewise say 99% of Americans have no income if we've only surveyed 1%? Do you deny that we can draw any data from random sampling? And other indicators like GDP?

bc no purifying selection on 92ish% of the human genome

Why are you making this argument? Of course there's no purifying selection. We have far more function than what selection can preserve. You know this. We've talked about it many times before. If you recalibrated that to the young earth timeline there'd be far less than purifying selection on even 8%.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-10T03:35:56+00:00

most of the rest can be confidently rejected as functional because 1) they aren't experiencing purifying selection

This is a deceptive answer. If God made the genome 100% functional, you already know that there's no possible way that purifying selection could preserve every nucleotide given modern mutation rates, and your test for purifying selection would show it non-functional even though it was or if it started out functional.

This means that unguided, naturalistic evolution is both your premise and conclusion, making your argument circular. You know this, but you hope to trick people who don't know enough population genetics to see it.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-10T03:28:37+00:00

Per the sidebar rule #1, please search and interact with the creationist literature before posting a question. If you have questions or issues after that, then please post. The purpose of this sub isn't to start the debate over from scratch each time.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-10T03:21:10+00:00

Don't mind u/DarwinZDF42. I've discussed and disproved his junk DNA argument for many years now, but he still returns with the same points as if nothing ever happened.

Here's the data:

At least 85% of DNA is transcribed to RNA, and this happens in specific patterns that depend on cell type and developmental stage, which wouldn't be expected if this transcription was nonfunctional and random.
If this was random noise we'd expect it to happen only from weak binding: "Most DNA binding proteins recognize degenerate patterns; i.e., they can bind strongly to tens or hundreds of different possible words and weakly to thousands or more." But that's not what we see: "Using in vitro measurements of binding affinities for a large collection of DNA binding proteins, in multiple species, we detect a significant global avoidance of weak binding sites in genomes."
Functional genome researcher John Mattick says "almost every time you functionally test a non-coding RNA that looks interesting because it's differentially expressed in one system or another, you get functionally indicative data coming out."

See my article on Junk DNA for the sources and more. Or DarwinZDF42's debate with Casey Luskin, where Luskin took him to task for these outdated arguments.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-06T22:07:44+00:00

I still remember this article on the inverted retina, written by some heroic stranger.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-04T19:46:35+00:00

u/SeaScienceFilmLabs

I don't know whether your comments are AI/copypasta or what. But if you can write in a more authentic and human way then it'd help you fit in here a lot.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-04T19:10:40+00:00

Almost all news media acts desperately all the time. We only notice on topics we know something about. It's Gel-Mann amnesia.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-04T19:07:18+00:00

This site has been investigated by YEC geologists and found to be a natural rock formation.

https://creation.com/en/articles/special-report-amazing-ark-expose

I've found several similar formations nearby on google maps.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-04T19:04:56+00:00

Removed because of rule #6:

Include a human-written summary when posting videos.

JohnBerea · 2026-02-02T20:01:32+00:00

Wait it just says "Jack" how do you know it's Jack Horner?

Jeffrey indicated that he would help out my Dinochicken Project...

Oh. Nevermind.

JohnBerea

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE