• 0 Posts
  • 125 Comments
Joined 3 个月前
Cake day: 2025年9月15日
  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.workstoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Why do you personally believe in your religion?
    2·
    2 天前

    No worries, I can also be slow to respond. There’s a few things at play here:

    1. Neutral mutations can become beneficial later on. It’s not just about the genes, it’s also about the environment. Even deleterious mutations can become beneficial, like sickle cell disease likely being selected for due to its protection against malaria.

    2. Following from that, deleterious/neutral/beneficial are pretty loose categories, and it’s not even really correct to think of them as categories. It’s more about how beneficial it is. Sickle cell disease is bad, but better than dying of malaria.

    3. Beneficial mutations can be really beneficial. Once somebody has them, they can spread like wildfire through the population. One example is the ability to digest lactose as an adult. It’s “worth” lots of “failures” to get that mutation (using those terms loosely and without value judgement). An analogy might help here, think about it kind of like this slime mold searching for food. The tips have a lot of churn and waste, but the food it finds is worth doing all that work. You can think of the beneficial mutations as the branches that are kept.

      (Note that evolution isn’t directed by “something”, even as simple as a slime mold, it’s a description of a physical process, like gravity, so the analogy is loose)

    4. We’ve seen beneficial mutations happen in person, and shows another example of how useful beneficial mutations can be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment. The E. coli evolved the ability to digest a new substance they couldn’t before. The experiment also touches on neutral mutations sticking around.

    5. The distinction you’re drawing between micro evolution and macro evolution relies on an assumption that either there are different kinds that are inherently distinct, or some sort of “system” that prevents micro evolution from progressing into macro evolution. For the prior, I’ve never seen a defense of that that doesn’t rely on the supernatural, and for the latter, what happens when the system itself changes due to evolution?

    6. In my personal experience, the strongest argument against any radical move away from the current general scientific worldview consensus is that everything generally fits together. Sure, the estimated age of the universe might be adjusted slightly from 13.7B to 13.8B years, or the Jurassic might actually be estimated slightly wrong. But across all evidence we have, the current scientific understanding across a diverse range of disciplines is approximately correct. Nobody is counting tree rings and saying “Wait a minute, these show the Earth is 6,000 years old!”. Nobody is dating rocks and saying “Hold on, this dates as twice as old as the universe!”. Note that you’ll find claims of things like fossilized tracks of humans walking next to dinosaurs, but those don’t pan out

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.workstoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•*Permanently Deleted*
    8·
    8 天前

    Some amount of that is literal psyops. Every major country is intentionally trying to cause at least some division in their geopolitical rivals. There’s also internal psyops where governments will try to fracture any movements that might cause political change. At a smaller level, there’s echo chambers built by people that are already sucked into an ideology, hoping to propagate that ideology. This recent thread that had simple biological truth downvoted to hell is an example:

    https://sh.itjust.works/post/50387688/22307005

    All in all it’s not new though, it’s just gotten more efficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism is one example of how it’s always been this way. Isaac Asimov also had a pithy quote:

    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

    When you have your basic needs met and aren’t starving to death, you can afford to be irrational and embrace comforting lies. It’s just the human condition.

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyz•OnLy tWo eLemEnTsEnglish
    1·
    8 天前

    Sorry, I can’t help you when you’re being willfully obtuse. I’ll try one last analogy, which I’ve been resisting since it can often confuse, but I really don’t know how else to get through to you. Don’t bother say “Oho! Here’s where the analogy fails!”. I already know that, thanks.

    Consider a computer program in which its “sex” is determined by the first bit it outputs, either 1 or 0. You run it and the program doesn’t output anything. Oh no! What sex is it? You examine the program and find a “output_zero_bit” function that was never called. The program has no other way of writing a bit. There is no code that will output a 1, and it is impossible for the program to do so. That program would be “sexed” as a “0” because although it didn’t output a 0, it has the code to output a zero and doesn’t have the code to output a 1. If, at some point, we found programs that had no code to output anything at all, and had no concept of outputting either a zero or a one, we’d called those programs sexless. Those programs would be organized around producing nothing. But nothing like that has been found, and it’s extremely unlikely that we ever would.

    Again, don’t bother responding if you’re going to say “humans aren’t 1’s and 0’s!”. Already aware, thanks. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere if you’re going to respond with an “Oho!”, but if anyone else reading this is actually curious, that analogy may help clarify the situation.

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyz•OnLy tWo eLemEnTsEnglish
    2·
    8 天前

    Posted another link elsewhere that explains the ambiguous terminology a bit:

    https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

    Although rare, some individuals have disorders of sex development (also referred to as intersex conditions). Most of these disorders are male or female specific and do not cause ambiguous biological sex. Some individuals have reproductive anatomies with both male and female features; here, biological sex classification is a complex process with input from medical professionals and parents. Not one of these individuals represents an additional sex class.

    I think the answer you’re looking for is that ambiguous is being used in the sense of “not immediately obvious, requires further investigation”, not “impossible to know in principle”

    Either way, thanks for the conversation (and pedantry!)

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyz•OnLy tWo eLemEnTsEnglish
    2·
    9 天前

    You’ve illustrated my point exactly. Why are those conditions called ovarian agenesis and anorchia? Think hard about that and what that implies about the fact that, even though the gonads are missing, we can tell what they would be if present. The names literally support my point. MRKH likewise leads to missing ovaries, not testes. Why is that?

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyz•OnLy tWo eLemEnTsEnglish
    2·
    9 天前

    You’re trying to find a gotcha where there is none. I’m telling you that your question is incoherent.

    The sex of an organism is defined as the size of the gametes it is organized around producing. That’s it. The secondary structures just tell you what that’s likely to be, because they’re correlated with it.

    You’re trying to posit a “spherical cow”, a theoretical construct that doesn’t exist. A body won’t just “not have gonads”. You’re talking about magically poofing someone’s gonads out of existence. It’s the same as asking “Oh yeah, well if I was a rectangle, what sex would I be?”

    I’m explaining the more reasonable and coherent case of “Assume you can’t examine the gonads of a body. How can you fairly reliably determine their sex by looking at secondary structures”? Note that it’s “fairly reliably” here because it’s entirely the gonads that define sex (pre-emptively, yes it’s gamete size, no I’m not changing the definition, but gonads are what produce gametes, stop trying to misread plain language for gotchas). If you restrict yourself from looking at gonads then you’re limiting yourself to correlates

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyz•OnLy tWo eLemEnTsEnglish
    3·
    9 天前

    Even if I’ve failed to convince you, thanks for actually trying to understand, unlike most in this thread. The best link I can provide for further reading is probably this peer-reviewed article published by a biologist, Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes. Here’s a few quotes:

    Across anisogamous species, the existence of two—and only two—sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology

    Here I synthesize evolutionary and developmental evidence to demonstrate that sex is binary (i.e., there are only two sexes) in all anisogamous species and that males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates.

    This commentary advances a simple claim with broad consequences: In anisogamous organisms, the sexes—male and female—are functional classes defined by the type of gamete an individual has the biological function to produce (Bogardus, 2025). Males have the biological function to produce sperm; females have the biological function to produce ova (Parker et al., 1972). That definition is universal across all anisogamous taxa

    As I’ve said elsewhere in the thread, nothing I’ve said here is actually a claim that I myself am making. I’m simply stating what the consensus is. Trying to find flaws in that definition is how science works, and it’s healthy to poke at it.