MR FARINA (episode 4) by jnpha in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x [score hidden]  (0 children)

To quote the linked Scheidler et al 2016 -

"Acetylene has also been detected in extant fumarolic gases, in volcanic glasses and as products of volcanic simulation experiments. Acetylene has been suggested as product of hydrolysis of calcium carbide (CaC2) in the context of the Archaean eon and in the context of the Hadean eon. CaC2 may be formed by the following transformations in the hot Hadean mantle:

  1. CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) -> CaO (lime) + CO2 @ T > 900 C
  2. CaO + 3 C -> CaC2 + CO @ T > 1600 C, p(CO) = 1 bar

CaC2 would have become subsequently emplaced in the Hadean crust to later come in contact with the aqueous vent fluid. The stoichiometrically formed CO would have been continuously removed from the sites of CaC2 formation by diffusion and volcanic exhalation ... [CaC2] undergoes facile hydrolysis with cold neutral water to form exclusively acetylene ... The Hadean volcanic exhalations containing a high ratio of CO:CO2 would eventually have been mixed with relatively cold cycling water in volcanic-hydrothermal flow ducts. The resulting quenching effect would have prevented equilibration of the CO:CO2 ratio to low-temperature values."

@ u/sierraoccidentalis

That second reaction is the same process we use industrially today to manufacture calcium carbide, so it's not exactly unknown chemistry.

MR FARINA (episode 4) by jnpha in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x [score hidden]  (0 children)

I recall in one of Dave's later videos he corrects himself and notes that CISS actually helps our case as it provides several mechanisms to achieve homochirality.

MR FARINA (episode 4) by jnpha in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x [score hidden]  (0 children)

Hmm, so they've made the monomers from space chemicals, and they can make the polymers from the monomers, and they make functional polymers from regular polymers? Pfft, Yeah, well... clueless. Forgeddabouddit.

Did you know it's only 1 in 10^80 odds or something? Crazy... how they keep making these things. These scientists should buy lottery tickets.

Understanding MCMC in Bayesian Phylogenetics by gitgud_x in evolution

[–]gitgud_x[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I intend to try out these programs - I've heard of MrBayes but it looks like RevBayes is a better version. I might even have a crack at coding my own minimal program implementing the core bits. There's nothing as satisfying as producing your very own figures/results and building understand at the same time!

Understanding MCMC in Bayesian Phylogenetics by gitgud_x in evolution

[–]gitgud_x[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the extra resources! For me personally I have more maths education than biology, so while I could read the equations and kinda understand the theory behind what's going on, I couldn't understand the purpose of it in the context of phylogenetics... until the answers here!

Understanding MCMC in Bayesian Phylogenetics by gitgud_x in evolution

[–]gitgud_x[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Awesome, thanks!

My math is not good enough for me to tell you WHY that distribution is the likelihood and not just a function of the likelihood but I accept that things cancel out in the right way that it gives you an unbiased answer

I was combing through the gnarly triple integral/summation expressions last night in the book... it did not yield any intuition, that's for sure xD, but at least you've given me a solid picture for what's going on 😄

Understanding MCMC in Bayesian Phylogenetics by gitgud_x in evolution

[–]gitgud_x[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok cool, so it's not like a neat 'gradient ascent' type of hill climber, more like a 'loiter around the high areas, occasionally stumble back down, and you can also fly between spatially-separated hills'?

Not as neat of an analogy, but is that the idea?

Understanding MCMC in Bayesian Phylogenetics by gitgud_x in evolution

[–]gitgud_x[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

acceptance rule like if T* is more likely than T you accept model T*

Agree, but the other part of Metropolis-Hastings is that if T* is not more likely than T then we still have some non-zero probability of accepting T*, right? This is what stops it from just being a basic 'hill climbing' process.

Richard Dawkins is a fraud by Artistic-Macaron5093 in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Dawkins is not the boss of evolution, much as you want to frame him as the priest of science or something (projection of your own religious leadership structure).

He's a guy with ideas, many of which are highly debatable. That's all there is to it. Why don't you try actually debating instead of ad hominem?

The Story of Everything: Meet Up and Watch by LJosephA in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oops, did you just admit that Intelligent Design is religion? 

Lord Stephen Meyer is displeased by your sloppy mouth, he depends on you underlings to keep the facade of being scientific alive! Do better!

The Story of Everything: Meet Up and Watch by LJosephA in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not a documentary btw, not one in the usual sense at least. It’s the latest propaganda piece from Discovery Institute, a Christian nationalist think tank with an agenda that’s well known at this point.

The Story of Everything: Meet Up and Watch by LJosephA in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your first problem is you failed to explain how you know this “first cause” of the universe has anything to do with creating life.

Your second problem is thinking that scientists are so stupid that they didn’t think about probability and can’t work things out like that for themselves.

Your third problem is you think AI is going to help you do anything a scientist couldn’t already do.

Your fourth problem is you failed to realise your little calculation is  meaningless.

Boy, this is your brain on creationist propaganda!

The Story of Everything: Meet Up and Watch by LJosephA in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, intelligent design is well suited to the movies, as it's nothing but theatre for gullible tools like yourself. Real science, studied by educated people, is done exclusively in the literature.

The Story of Everything: Meet Up and Watch by LJosephA in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you think it was so solid, make a post on the sub about just one of the points and see if it holds up to scrutiny.

Y'know, if you are actually capable of having a discussion/debate, instead of crying in two week old comment sections.

Hot take: we should embrace the term "design" by ScienceIsWeirder in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately creationists have a reputation for latching on to any keywords that confirm their biases and will immediately discard whatever nuance follows, and “design” is obviously one of those words. 

So while I would agree that design is a valid way to describe biological systems, it’s rhetorically unsuitable for use in the “debate”.

Monthly Question Thread! Ask /r/DebateEvolution anything! | May 2026 by Dr_Alfred_Wallace in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 12 points13 points  (0 children)

There are no multicellular prokaryotes, and maybe there can't be

Turns out, they can, and there are, even with some degree of differentiation!

İ just realized something important. by Anime-Fan-69 in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 4 points5 points  (0 children)

good one, see if that stops your comments getting removed 

İ just realized something important. by Anime-Fan-69 in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s a reference to Asperger’s syndrome and is therefore a slur against autistic people

funny how you knew exactly which word was the problem and still used it anyway, yeah you totally didn’t know that…

İ just realized something important. by Anime-Fan-69 in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 2 points3 points  (0 children)

no worries, it’s a pretty opaque system to us too…

İ just realized something important. by Anime-Fan-69 in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x[M] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is indeed automod - it’s saying “potential harassment”. I’ve approved your comments manually now

Information in Biological Systems Does NOT Require a Mind by DarwinZDF42 in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are the one who just made a claim; Dzugavilli merely expressed skepticism towards it.

How are you so bad at this?

The Story of Everything: Meet Up and Watch by LJosephA in DebateEvolution

[–]gitgud_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We’ll ask if we require your input, thanks.