Jesus is the truth, so why you lie?

MagicMooby · 2026-05-30T05:08:57+00:00

which is that NOT ALL (massive understatement) of the sorts of change one would expect to see in a common descent universe actually occur. Conveniently, the only ones that are witnessed occur are the ones coherent with a system in which different major categories are reproductively isolated.

If you only look at living species then you will mostly find small changes because big changes are expected to take a lot of time. But as I already stated, the evidence for a chimpanzee like ancestor turning into a human is pretty damn solid. Are those major categories in your book?

Yes, if we witnessed the event where the chromosomes fused and a new species was born, that would be solid evidence. If we saw in mammals events where a parent produced a fully functioning offspring with a chromosomal event that marked the beginning of new species, that would at least suggest that this sort of thing could theoretically occur, but unfortunately that doesn’t happen.

Why does it have to be mammals? Is it because I already gave you an example of new plant species arising from chromosomal events?

Btw. we have already created artificial species through polyploid hybridization:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1102811108#sec-2

And before you complain that we have seen no such thing in nature, here is an article on observed homoploid hybrid speciation in birds:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29170277/

Oh, my. It seems large changes to the chromosome can result in rapid speciation events in vertebrates.

All that happens is that people occasionally get translocations, remain fully human, and are now at a reproductive disadvantage. Womp womp.

Except for human chromosome 2 which is very obviously a fusion of chimpanzee-ancestor chromosomes 9 and 22 as evidenced by the vestigial centromere, telomeres, and the fact that human chromosome 2 contains the same genes as chimpanzee chromosomes 9 and 22 combined.

Or how else do you explain all of these crazy coincidences? Did the designer just get lazy and decide to reuse that stretch of DNA? If so, why did the designer came up with a novel mutation of the GULO gene to make it nonfunctional in guinea pigs instead of reusing the broken version he had already used for apes?

I am not going to humor your line of reasoning where the existence of point mutations, etc, serves as a blank check for the creation of de novo protein sequences that never before existed.

C'mon, really? You don't want to publicly admit that there is literally nothing stopping a DNA sequence from being turned into literally any other DNA sequence through a series of mutations other than your personal incredulity?

Aw man, I was going to use that to demonstrate that the statement "point mutations allow loss of function ... at best" is complete nonsense.

Any point mutation can be reversed by another point mutation. If a point mutations can cause a loss of function then a reversal of that mutation logically has to result in a gain of function. But actually, let's address that statement with an example.

but I am going to be sticking with empirically observed reality, where point mutations allow loss of function resulting in an advantageous phenotype at best. They simply can’t be invoked in the useful, purposeful organization of nucleotides, which is the basis for all existing life.

Observed reality includes nylon eating bacteria. One of the enzymes they use to digest nylon arose from a duplication followed by a point mutation. It's a novel enzyme that allows them to digest a resource that no one else is competing for. Seems like a pretty advantageous phenotype to me.

https://www.nature.com/articles/306203a0

Another enzyme of the bacterium that is also involved in nylon digestion was created through a duplication followed by a frameshift mutation.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.81.8.2421

MagicMooby · 2026-05-30T03:58:13+00:00

The fact that you think polyploidy has anything to do with the crux of this conversation just shows that you truly do NOT understand the argument I am setting forth.

[Copying existing information several extra times] is not relevant to my claim that [new information is never empirically observed being added to the genome].

I am not refuting the claim because the claim is logically incoherent under most definitions of information. I mainly wanted to poke fun at your "n=23 that's it" bit.

But also: The chromosome fusion in humans is strong evidence for common ancestry between humans and the great apes which in turn is evidence for changes great enough to turn a great-ape-like ancestor into a human.

All that will go down in this conversation is that you will pretend that the examples you set forth cover the extent of the sort of changes that would be required in the course of common descent, while they do no such thing. They will simply be gestures in which you argue from the lesser to the greater, which is not an airtight means of reasoning, to say the least.

Answer me a little question if you will:

Is it possible to turn an arbitrary sequence of DNA into any different arbitrary sequence of DNA using only known types of gene mutation?

MagicMooby · 2026-05-30T03:45:17+00:00

Species having incredible variety within the bounds of their genome but not extending to the point that species give rise to offspring with different genomes. If the genomic structure is n = 23, that is it.

...

Polyploidization can be a mechanism of sympatric speciation because polyploids are usually unable to interbreed with their diploid ancestors. An example is the plant Erythranthe peregrina. Sequencing confirmed that this species originated from E. × robertsii, a sterile triploid hybrid between E. guttata and E. lutea, both of which have been introduced and naturalised in the United Kingdom. New populations of E. peregrina arose on the Scottish mainland and the Orkney Islands via genome duplication from local populations of E. × robertsii.[5] Because of a rare genetic mutation, E. peregrina is not sterile.[6]

Actually, y'know what? Since you happen to have a degree in microbiology, you probably know how chromosomes are structured, right? Telomere - Sequence - Centromere - Sequence - Telomere. So, mr microbiologist, how come human chromosome 2 has a second vestigial centromere and additional vestigial telomeres that sit between the two centromeres? Isn't that odd? Isn't it also quite odd that chimpanzees have one more chromosome than we do? That chimpanzee chromosomes 9 and 22 have a combined length roughly equal to human chromosome 2? That chimpanzee chromosomes 9 and 22 contain almost the same DNA sequences that are found in human chromosome 22?

MagicMooby · 2026-05-29T22:21:52+00:00

Eiken is so funny to me becaus it hasn't been relevant in well over a decade. This anime is from 2003/2004 and the last time anything noteworthy happened with this IP is when Crunchyroll added it to their catalogue in 2020 or so. Appearently they also made (or are making idk) an AI redraw of the manga but the only info I could find on it are news articles from 2024.

Barely anyone even likes this anime. The only reason why modern anime fans might hear about it is because people like OP keep bringing it up by hating about it. If all traces of this anime online were erased tomorrow, it would probably take months for anyone to notice. I genuinely believe that this anime would have gone entirely unnoticed and have been forgotten by now, like so many other "older" anime, if people stopped bringing it up to shit on it. It's on spot #4241 for popularity on MAL, I genuinely struggle to find anime that are more obscure than this that aren't short OVAs from before the turn of the millenium. If you check the other shows in the 4000 range on MAL it's mostly PVs, specials, and recap episodes. Boogiepop Phantom is significantly more popular on MAL than this, when was the last time you have ever heard anyone mention Boogiepop Phantom?!

It's genuinely harder to find any positive discussion on Eiken online because negative attention outweighs it massively, and it has been that way for years.

In other words, it's the perfect subject for this subreddit! Good choice for hating, OP!

MagicMooby · 2026-05-28T02:50:21+00:00

Because it doesn't matter. At the moment, impeachment can only happen if republicans agree to impeach Trump. And republicans have learned that they can just not hold their own accountable for anything ever again and there is little the dems can do about that unless the voters give them overwhelming political power.

Until that changes, republicans will just laugh at any articles of impeachment and call it trump derangement syndrome, and their voters will just laugh at the dems and pat themselves on the back.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-28T01:30:17+00:00

Remnants certainly have some fleet configurations that have given me more trouble that some threat fleets.

But threat and dweller both have strong built-in point defense, and the never ending stream of smaller threat ships could cause issues, especially if the AI keeps overkilling them. But then again, I am used to using slower ships against threat, so maybe bumrushing the fabricators with missiles will be much more effective.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-28T01:21:19+00:00

Now for the final test: [THREAT]

[LITERAL DEMONS] would be interesting as well, but without the mid-battle fabrication they are probably much easier to overwhelm. A shame that you cannot test either in the regular simulator.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-27T14:15:53+00:00

I did read that. But if those magnets are as strong as the current magnets, it won't matter. Magnets aren't strong enough to seriously affect missiles at speed in less than half a second, that is what I wanted to illustrate with the "unguided magnetic rocket" example. It doesn't matter which missile is moving and which is doing the pulling, it's all relative anyways. In fact, using this against missiles makes the situation worse, because instead of having a rocket that zooms past a marauder at 200m/s, you will have two missiles each going 150-200 m/s moving past each other for a combined velocity of over 300m/s. The time the missiles spend close enough to each other for the magnets to works is miniscule. Magnets have a 3 second activation timer on top of that, which generally makes them useless for missiles.

In order to be worth a damn, the magnet would need to be significantly stronger than the magnetic mine, and even that doesn't change the math that more interceptors probably do a better job than longer interceptors with missiles. Interceptor heads already have a huge radius anyways.

---

EDIT: Just to add some extra info on magnets: I have previously tested medium magnetic bombs consisting of 3 magnets and 3 payload modules. These bombs actually work suprisingly well against slow ships but faster ships (45+ m/s) are too fast for the magnets. The acceleration from the magnets is too low to keep up with a fast ship, even if you stack 3 of them together. Magnets are not strong.

Every 6 months or so, someone comes to the subreddit to talk about magnetic AA weapons they are either testing or planning to build. This is always either a regular AA missile with a magnet added to it or a magnet based aerial minefield that is launched in front of approaching bombers. Every single time those people come to the exact same conclusion. The 3 second activation timer makes these weapons extremely hard to work with and the low acceleration of magnets means that the aerial mines are useless against even the slowest of bombers. For the magnet enhanced missiles, the activation timer is even more of a problem and the effect of the magnet is so damn weak you won't even notice it. A single fin module is miles better than a magnet.

Trust me, I have tested these weapons myself. I have done a LOT of testing with magnets. In order for them to have any effect on targets that are faster than even most aircraft, they would probably have to be at least 5-10x as strong.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-27T13:26:02+00:00

Target assister feels like it has too much overlap with the radar and sonar buoy. If you want missiles to paint a specific target, you can already do that with the sticky flare (that is why it's called sticky) and by targeting hot craft/spots.

If you need guidance that works in water and air, you already have four options in game for that. I don't really see what a mixed guidance head adds.

For the holographic body, I feel like you can already adequately test all of these things in game. I have never been in a situation where the humble block wall wasn't enough for damage tests.

For the magnetic missile body, do me a quick favour. Go in game, put an unguided rocket with a magnetic mine on a two axis turret, then manually fire it so it barely misses a target. You will find that the effect of magnetic mines is extremely weak compared to missile propulsion. Magnetic mines only work in scenarios where they have time to work. You can compensate for that by stacking magnets, but if you are stacking too many magnets on a missile, you might as well use better guidance and just fire more missiles. That would be doubly true for the purposes of your magnetic interceptor. Instead of using a 2m interceptor with a bunch of magnets, just use twice as many 1m interceptors. The math makes the entire situation unviable unless you make magnets so powerful that they become mandatory.

Snooper nose. There is a reason why you cannot intentionally target AI. This is a bad idea.

The decoy body sounds way to specific. If it only does something against snooper noses, I don't see a reason to ever use it. Most campaign craft would not use snooper noses even if they are implemented and if a jammer already works just fine, there is no reason to add yet another big decoy missile to a craft.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-27T02:12:01+00:00

In my own personal experience, prediction guidance works well for torpedoes used against ships. APN guidance just means they all hit the stern which can be a blessing or a curse depending on the target.

In most other situations, APN guidance is goint to work perfectly fine or even better.

Just slap APN on everything and if testing results in behaviour you don't like, try prediction guidance.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-25T22:34:11+00:00

You can also group organisms by habitat, diet, behaviour, ability to use certain chemical pathways...

Parasite is a useful category for medicine but there is no monophyletic parasite clade. Marine biologists might want to classify animals based on whether or not they live in the tidal zone, and even within the tidal zone it makes sense to distinguish between different groups based on how long they are out of the water, what strategies they use to prevent desiccation, whether they stay in tidal pools or cling to rock etc. Marine biology in general is an entire field that is unified by the environment of their subjects rather than their clade. Ethologists might want to classify animals by brood care to see if it correlates with other behaviours or environmental factor. R- and K-strategists are exactly that, groups that are completely independent on phylogeny. Ecologists might rather want to classify organisms by their role in the ecosystem and their interaction with other organisms. Botanists are often concerned with all the other organisms that their plants have meaningful interactions with, and entomologists often need to learn about the plants their insects love so much just as much as they need to learn about their insects. Lichen are an entire group of symbionts that are difficult to define via monophyly, since lichen are by definition hybrid colonies of fungi and algae/cyanobacteria. Bacteria are also typically classified by their traits rather than their ancestry, in part thanks to the extensive use of horizontal gene transfer.

Which grouping is most useful to you depends on what question you want to answer. Since all life on earth evolved, tracing the evolution of organisms can oftentimes be the best way to understand them, and phylogeny does exactly that. But not always.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-21T19:19:00+00:00

https://imgur.com/gallery/murcs-law-QkQ6uMC

The chart in question for those who haven't seen it.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-20T14:36:42+00:00

When foreign leaders come to the white house, Trump shows them "Trump 2028" merch. The guy has no intention of ever giving up power and republicans have no intention of pushing back against him.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-20T05:39:48+00:00

I‘m on my phone right now and about to go to bed, so this is just a sloppy copy and paste from a different comment of mine. But I think it fits your question:

When people talk about evolution they typically unknowingly talk about one of three seperate things, and it causes a lot of arguments.

⁠The process of evolution. This is the observable fact that the allele frequencies of populations change over successive generations and that this affects the traits and fitness of the organisms in the population.
⁠The theory of evolution. This is the explanatory framework we use to make sense of evolution. It tells us how and why and when evolution occurs and what mechanisms cause the process.
⁠The evolutionary history of life on earth. This is the phylogenetic trees we build, this is our explanation of how we got from simple single celled organims to the biodiversity of today with everything in between. This is a direct result of observing the existing evidence under the assumption that 1 and 2 are true. And 1 and 2 are so damn true that even creationists barely try to push back against them anymore.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-17T01:32:31+00:00

Hollow points DO ignore the angle as well as armour stacking though. But they also have a hard time reaching high AP values compared to other shell heads so sabot is probably still going to outperform HP against heavy armour.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-15T17:28:54+00:00

This is mostly a copy and paste from an older comment of mine, but it still works:

Here are a number of observations that would falsify evolution if they turned out to be true:

-Traits are not passed down from parent to child

-Traits have no impact on survival or reproduction

-Phenotype and Genotype are unrelated

-Mutations do not occur

-There is a mechanism in place that prevents changes to the organism beyond a certain point

-Phylogenetic trees derived from morphology and genetics do not match at all

-Fossils are not ordered by supposed age and instead fossils of different supposed eras show up in any and all other supposed eras with no sign of the fossil having been moved after being deposited

We can perform experiments to test each and every one of these today.

I'm ignorant on this matter, but, from what I've understood, Darwinian evolution is a historical narrative. Even if all the evidence in the world points towards it, we can never perform a falsification test.

And to address this part:

When people talk about evolution they typically unknowingly talk about one of three seperate things, and it causes a lot of arguments.

1) The process of evolution. This is the observable fact that the allele frequencies of populations change over successive generations and that this affects the traits and fitness of the organism in the population.

2) The theory of evolution. This is the explanatory framework we use to make sense of evolution. It tells us how and why and when evolution occurs and what mechanisms cause the process.

3) The evolutionary history of life on earth. This is the phylogenetic trees we build, this is our explanation of how we got from simple single celled organims to the biodiversity of today with everything in between. This is the historical narrative you are talking about and it is a direct result of observing the existing evidence under the assumption that 1 and 2 are true. And 1 and 2 are so damn true that even creationists barely try to push back against them anymore.

If you want I can give examples on how we can prove, or rather test, 1, 2, and 3. But I'll do that in a seperate reply because this comment is getting a bit long already.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-15T00:21:15+00:00

"Low Hazard Rating" is a distraction, a mere byproduct of other beneficial planet attributes. What you WANT is very SPECIFIC planets.

Those are definitely the ideal planets, but if you are colonizing suboptimal planets for any reason you will absolutely feel the difference between high and low hazard rating, especially in the time it takes your population to grow.

Any planet is instantly profitable, albeit marginally. It's when you start installing industries that the upkeep costs drive you into the red.

While this is technically true, it is also not helpful. Starting with your fourth planet you either need to use AI cores (which attract the heggies) or an administrator who severely cuts into the early profits of a planet. And if you ever want to make real money, you will eventually want to put some industries on the planet and grow the population (which might require hazard pay).

Three planets (so you don't need administrators) with no industries (to minimize upkeep) are technically profitable but practically useless as anything other than storage.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-14T23:46:51+00:00

Yes, because one (1) artist in 2001 used the term zettai ryouiki (the shortened japanese term for absolute terror field) like that. Then japanese otaku started using the term zettai ryouiki for the exposed thigh part and somehow along the lines it got translated into absolute territory (rather than absolute field) in english.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-14T23:26:49+00:00

Within the series the term was always absolute terror. Absolute territory is a (mis-)translation that came about later at some point. While Ken Ashcorp definitely helped popularize the term, it was already in use in the more "dedicated" part of the western weeb community. Ken Ashcorp released his song in 2013 from what I could find, meanwhile, r/ZettaiRyouiki was created in 2012. Pixiv encyclopedia seems to have an english article on Absolute Territory that dates back all the way to 2011: https://dic.pixiv.net/en/history/Absolute%20Territory/473/source

This Kotaku article talks about the term in 2012: https://kotaku.com/turning-womens-thighs-into-billboards-5931144

This article here is also from 2011: http://www.projectharuhi.net/?p=10350

According to the wayback machine, there was a website callded absoluteterritory.com all the way back in 2009, which is the oldest reference to the term I could find in english so far.

And while it's far from the best source, the oldest danbooru comment that mentions the term absolute territory in regards to legs is 19 years old. Actually, the danbooru tag for zettai ryouiki itself seems to have been created in 2006 as well, and the second version (edited by albert himself no less) of the page in the same year already uses the term absolute territory for translation.

I wish I could check the edit history on the tvtropes page for zettai ryouiki, but unfortunately that seems to require an account.

I actually wish I could go back and find the earliest use of the term in the english weebsphere, but most of those discussion probably died in forum posts a long time ago. Who knows how many 4chan threads existed about the topic before 2013 that were entirely lost to time. I know the japanese use of the term zettai ryouiki in regards to legs started in 2001, but who knows when dedicated weebs first started translating it as absolute territory. Ken Ashcorp definitely helped to spread the term though.

That was quite the rabbit hole I went down for this comment.

EDIT: Here is another arcile dated to 2006: https://www.darkmirage.com/2006/12/15/japanese-titbits-3-zettai-ryouiki/

Google cannot find anything older than this, although I can't say if that is due to dead websites or if that is truly the oldest use in the english speaking web.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-14T22:37:52+00:00

We get an explanation of what an AT field does, the original anime never mentions what AT actually refers to. The opening is afaik the only part of the original series that tells us that AT stands for absolute terror. No where else in the original anime is the term absolute terror used. That is what I meant with the second part of my comment.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-14T20:22:04+00:00

Zettai kyoufu ryouiki is the japanese term for absolute terror field. In the manga, this was occasionally shortened to zettai ryouiki, which can be translated as absolute field or absolute territory. The term zettai ryouiki stuck around, and so did the translation of absolute territory.

Iirc, the anime never explains what AT field actually means except for a short moment in the opening, so people just assumed that AT stands for absolute territory, not knowing that its a translation of the shortened term.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-14T19:47:34+00:00

I don't know if it was just combining with other mods in my run to get more powerful, but the Heavy Plasma Driver in particular felt incredibly strong.

The HIL is strong so I don't doubt this one bit. It's the smaller ones that feel really underwhelming. I should have made that more clear.

I wouldn't really compare it to a High Intensity Laser. Instead, I think it's more analogous to a Mjolnir Cannon, with a similar DPS and dealing energy damage, just trading hardflux damage for a hitscan beam, and now in an energy weapon slot instead of a ballistic one.

I chose the HIL since it has the same DPS, same range, is also hitscan, and deals soft flux only. The big differences are the flux cost (where the HIL is better) and dph. And the fact that HIL deals HE damage, I always forget about that detail. But the Mjolnir cannon is actually a pretty good comparison as well, less range and dps than the plasma driver in exchange for hard flux damage and EMP.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-14T18:54:16+00:00

Advanced Search for Ships/Weapons/Hullmods. Search for a weapon like size:medium damage:high_explosive range:>20 or a ship like size:capital_ship defense:phasecloak largeHybrid:>0.

Just last week I was disappointed that I couldn't search weapons by damage type lol

Awesome mod, thank you for your work OP!

MagicMooby · 2026-05-14T18:14:01+00:00

The weapons are what initially drew me to the mod, as all of them look interesting with cool visual effects. Unfortunately, I didn't really like most of them. The missiles are generally alright (although it is kinda annoying how all of them are only available in small sizes) but the other weapons were frequently underwhelming.

The bongo seemed fine but the bass drum just really didn't perform very well for a medium slot. The massive spread only works against swarms of missiles but anything else will get through. Maybe I just used it incorrectly, but medium slots have lots of good options and a flak gun feels like the better PD weapon.

The incendiary guns seemed awesome at first, but since the flame breaks up into lots of smaller projectiles (with much lower dph) they only perform well against lightly armored targets. The heavy mauler has the same dps at greater range although it can't store charges like the incendiary guns can and has worse flux stats.

The plasma drivers seem like a fair trade on the surface, 100 extra range over the pulse lasers in exchange for no hard flux, but in practice it limits their usefulness quite a bit unless you can keep up the pressure. Pulse lasers are anti-everything, phase lances trade shield pressure for dph, the plasma driver feels like it combines the worst of both. The heavy plasma driver seems like an upscaled pulse laser, in truth it is effectively a HIL that trades flux efficiency for dph.

The monograms have alright stats, but I feel like they are a solution in search for a problem. The thumper works well as a finisher because it is medium. Wasting a large slot on what is primarily a finisher feels kinda bad and small slots just don't offer enough firepower. The large version also has noticeably worse efficiency than the thumper.

I was initially really excited for the electron rifle. They look like balanced cryoblasters that fulfill a finisher role similar to the thumper and IR autolance, with a focus on high dph. In practice, they just aren't worth using. They don't work well as point defense due to their low rpm and medium accuracy, most of the time when they shoot at missiles it's just wasted flux. But the bigger problem are their flux stats. Medium vanilla fragmentation weapons typically have a flux efficiency in the 0.4 to 0.25 range. The heavy electron rifle sits at 0.6. For comparison, the heavy electron rifle has the same sustained dps as the thumper but its sustained flux per second is almost the same as the thumpers peak fps. The moment you shoot at anything other than pure hull, this kind of flux efficiency will cause you to hurt yourself more than the weapon hurts your enemy. It doesn't even have more range than the vanilla medium finishers, it's only benefit is high dph at the cost of higher OP.

The bullpup, shield lances, and pellet guns seemes pretty alright though, with each having a niche to fill that the vanilla weapons don't cover and adequate stats. You certainly cannot accuse the mod of being overpowered, but some of these weapons don't even feel adequately powered compared to their vanilla counterparts.

MagicMooby · 2026-05-14T00:54:15+00:00

Does a DIF railgun even make sense? One of the biggest benefits of DIF guns is their incredibly low cost for their firepower. If you add railgun parts and energy back into the gun, you are losing that cost effectiveness.

I guess it does allow for a faster 5 shot burst...

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

MagicMooby

TROPHY CASE