Time (capital T) is vastly different than time (lowercase t).
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
92 points (93.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43898 readers
976 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Immediately knew it was Sabine
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That evolution is purely randomness + fitness landscape rather than that DNA guides the process at least somewhat. Donβt burn me alive guys
I donβt understand your point but it seems interesting. Could you rephrase?
The current paradigm assumes a uniform probability of mutation across all genes. But maybe there are mechanisms that say βkeep this part of the genome under tighter controlβ and βmake this other part of the genome more susceptible to mutation.β
load more comments
(1 replies)
I would expect randomness to play a larger roll than fitness.
In the short term (single digit generations) that's probably true, but I don't see how it could be on longer scales. If the random mutations decrease fitness, they won't be passed on at some point, since there is less reproduction. If they increase fitness, they will be passed on to more individuals.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don't know for sure, but there are some debates that simply don't make sense to me. For example, whether or not dark matter/energy exists is something many just absolutely insist upon. To me, I would imagine, if something exists, being "measurable" is a badge or prerequisite of its existence, but here we have a name for the black omnipresence essence everywhere, the substance of nothing, so to speak, to the point where one of the theories put forward about the gravitational anomalies in the outer solar system is that it's simply dark matter. I'm not buying it. I'm of the school of thought that what we see really is just plain nothingness. For those who constantly accuse the "it could be aliens" theory, it ranks up there to float around a go-to for everything.
Another one are the constant asteroid theories. What made the moon? An asteroid. What tipped Uranus? An asteroid. What killed the dinosaurs? ~~The ice age~~ An asteroid. It doesn't come off as very critical, especially when imprecisions are growing out of them all, for example people went from saying dinosaurs were all genocided specifically by the asteroid to some people saying there were some who became birds to some saying all of them became birds and animals to saying the asteroid did almost nothing to any whole species.
I once heard that dark matter is just the consequence of using approximations and then having equations not balance out further down the line. So we inject dark matter in there so that the math maths all right.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(22 replies)