Edit: Okay, so I think I have figured out how this works. I think. Please see replies for example. This linky
Edit2: Sorry for all the edits. Turns out, IT DOES WORK! But, it only works with new items created after you change the settings. Look here for Imgur album
Edit3: It also seems to work for items newly discovered. New knives, new hammers, new desk legs, etc.
Generally I'm a vanilla-settings kind of guy, but certain items have way too little durability. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have hammers that are 20 years old that have likely seen over 500,000 strikes and have pulled thousands of nails, and they still work...
Anyway, frustrations aside: I wanted to decrease the durability multiplier for my world, but I'm already 8 hours in and don't feel like restarting.
Thanks for any assistance you can offer!

Introduction:

Those who object to the theory of human descent from apes often argue, "How can you suggest that Adam, a revered figure, descended from such a lowly creature as an ape?" bearing striking resemblance to Iblîs objection to prostrating to Adam in 17:61 because he felt that he was a better creation. Their objection appears rooted in arrogance and pride, unless there are explicit statements in the Quran that directly contradict the notion they are asserting, which, to my knowledge, there are not.
The reason why this has been a reoccurring question to me personally is because of the verse that speaks of the Big Bang Theory in the Qur'an, namely 21:30;

"Have not those who disbelieved seen that the heavens and the earth were joined (as a single unit), so We (forcefully) ruptured them asunder, and We made from water every living thing? Do they not believe?"

In this verse, God explicitly describes the Big Bang, followed by the statement, "And We made from water every living thing." It appears that God is addressing both the origin of the universe and the origin of life in this verse. These two statements align closely with two significant scientific theories: the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Remarkably, scientists also assert that water is the origin of life. However, from a traditional Muslim perspective, there has been reluctance to accept the idea of human evolution from other species. This has posed a challenge, as Adam's creation from clay is emphasized, giving the impression that he came into existence without a father. Interestingly, scientists today also suggest that our origins trace back to clay
(source: Https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html).
Is this merely coincidental? It seems unlikely.
Does the Quran explicitly claim that Adam was a piece of clay that God instantly turned into a human, much like the Hadiths say? Or would it be possible to interpret it as a gradual process that took millions of years, with a variety of species in this process?

Gradual creation Vs Constant and static:

The Qur'an says that humans were created from clay, in 15:28:

"And when your Lord said to the angels, 'I am creating a human being from clay of altered black smooth mud.'"

Does that mean that humans were clay, and then instantly turned into humans? God tells us that He created us in stages:

"And He has created you stages." (71:14)

Traditional interpretations focus on stages of development in the womb, but Just a few verses later, God says:

"'And God has produced you from the earth growing (gradually)," (71:17)

This description bears a striking resemblance to the concept of evolution proposed by scientists. The gradual development of life forms, culminating in the creation of Adam, aligns with the idea of a step-by-step process over time.
Adam's creation, portrayed as gradual with distinct stages, reflects the natural order established by God. These stages, potentially representing earlier species that inhabited the earth, harmonize with the principles of nature as observed by scientists.
Therefore, the Quranic depiction of Adam's creation as a gradual process resonates with the concept of evolution, highlighting a convergence between religious teachings and scientific understanding of the natural world.
When discussing creation, God's language in religious texts often appears open to interpretation and is not overly literal. This ambiguity may have been deliberate, allowing early believers to understand these concepts within the framework of their own understanding of science and nature. But reading the Qur'an today, one can definitely see what God was doing. The statements He made resemble those of today's scientists regarding our greatest discoveries.

"Praise be to God, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs): He adds to Creation as He pleases: for God has power over all things." (35:1)

This verse suggests that God continually adds to His creation and alters it, indicating that it is not static and unchanging. For example, angels may have initially possessed two pairs of wings, but God augmented them to three, then four, and perhaps even more in the present day. If God can make such modifications to His creation, why would He not also alter our own creation as He sees fit?
God says in the Qur'an:

"And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, 'Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority.' They said, 'Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?' Allah said, 'Indeed, I know that which you do not know.'" (Quran 2:30)

The phrase "Successive authority" hints at the idea of succession, the exact nature of this succession is open to interpretation and can vary among believers. Some may see this as a succession in species that will have authority, others may just see it as a succession or continuation of authority over the Earth.

The actual father of the Evolution Theory: A Muslim polymath!

The scientist that first suggested an evolution in humans (species to species, i.e. macroevolution), was a Muslim, Ibn Khaldun:

"Ibn Khaldun asserted that humans developed from "the world of the monkeys", in a process by which "species become more numerous". He believed that humans are the most evolved form of animals, in that they have the ability to reason. He also stated that the Earth began with abiotic components such as minerals."

Source: wikipedia.org/.
This raises questions, why a Muslim? Was he inspired by the Qur'an? Or did this just occur to him from nowhere? The Qur'an does say "... in stages" and "from the earth growing" so it probably was the Qur'an that gave him the idea.

The 6 Days of creation - Rather: 6 Eons/periods that God called "Days":

The Quran states that everything was created in six days. However, the term "day" in the Quran isn't necessarily confined to a 24-hour period. In 22:47, it's mentioned that a heavenly Day equals 1000 years of our time, and the Day of Judgment will span 50,000 years in our reckoning. Consequently, some scholars suggest that the six Days of creation signify six eons or periods of time, known only to God. It's unreasonable to insist that a Day (as God counted it) must conform to our concept of a 24-hour period. Time, being a creation of God, could have functioned differently initially. God chose to divide the creation process into six periods, labeling each a "Yawm" (Day). Our "Yawms" are 24 hours long due to Earth's rotation speed, but this shouldn't limit our understanding of God's timeline.
Clarifying this point is crucial because the argument that creation was swift and didn't involve millions of years of evolution is flawed and lacks strength.

The Quran actually agrees with the timeline of when everything came into being:

- Mountains, food etc
The Qur’an says:

"And He placed on the earth firmly set mountains over its surface, and He blessed it and determined therein its [creatures'] sustenance in four days (or: eons/periods) without distinction - for [the information] of those who ask." (The Holy Qur’an 41:10)

If we imagine 13.8b years in 6 periods, would it be accurate to say that the earth had developed food and mountains etc in 4 periods (starting from the period it started forming)? It would. Our universe is 13.8 billion years. If we divide it evenly into six periods, the emergence of food sources would indeed fall within the fourth period, as would mountains.
- The earth formed in 2 periods
The Qur’an says:

Say, "Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds." (The Holy Qur’an 41:9)

Would it be accurate to say that the earth was formed (and was a planet) within after 2 periods? Yes, it would. During the first period, the Earth began forming from the accretion of dust, gas, and other materials in the solar nebula. Over time, these materials came together due to gravity, leading to the formation of a molten mass that eventually started to differentiate into layers. During the second period, the Earth continued to cool down and solidify, forming a solid crust. By the end of this period, the basic structure of a planet, with a solid surface and differentiated interior, had emerged.
- The universe became filled with stars and planets at the end of the second period
The Qur’an says:

"And He completed them as seven heavens within two days and inspired in each heaven its command. And We adorned the nearest heaven with lamps and as protection. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing." (The Holy Qur’an 41:12)

We would have the formation of celestial bodies, including stars and planets, after two periods (approximately 2 billion years earlier than when mountains and food sources emerged on earth).
And the fact that the Qur'an says:

"Then He turned to the heaven, which was smoke––He said to it and the earth, ‘Come into being, willingly or not,’ and they said, ‘We come willingly’"

(The Holy Qur’an 41:11)
This just goes to show that the universe (as-Samâi), which had to have been an empty vacum with Nebula ("Smoke", which is gasses that are made of smoke and dust particles), was the first thing that was created before the creation of the earth and the universe we today observe. Then He divided it into seven heavens, ours being the universe He filled with stars. There's even a verse where God speaks of the expanding universe, verses describing the Big Crunch Theory, and countless other statements that strikingly resemble established scientific theories and facts.
The point I'm trying to make is that traditionalists don't have much to argue with and the Qur'an fully agrees with science, including the Evolution Theory.

Natural process Vs "Be, and it becomes" (Kun fa yakun):

The Quranic verse (3:47) highlights that God's creation occurs through His command "Be," which brings things into existence. However, this doesn't negate the involvement of what we perceive as natural processes. For instance, when Mary questions how she can have a son without a man touching her, she is assured that God creates as He wills, simply by saying "Be," and it happens.
In the case of Jesus' conception, the Quranic narrative emphasizes the natural process of pregnancy, wherein Mary carries him in her womb, and the typical duration of it is nine months. The involvement of the archangel Gabriel, who blows Jesus' soul into Mary, adds a supernatural element to the event, but it still follows a natural sequence. God's ability to create instantly by His command doesn't preclude Him from operating within the framework of His ordained laws. Therefore, even miraculous events like Jesus' conception align with the laws established by God. Why would God do something in an instant and go against the very laws He ordained?

Science is not the enemy, it's our friend and God encourages us to study science in the Quran:

God says in the Quran:

“Travel through the land and observe how He began creation. Then God will produce the final creation. Indeed God, over all things, is competent.” (The Qur’an 29:20)

Science is not an adversary; rather, it is a valuable ally, as the Quran itself encourages the study of science. The Quranic verse (29:20) prompts us to travel and observe creation, indicating that such exploration is not detrimental to our belief in God. If scientific inquiry posed a threat to faith, God, being All-Knowing, would not advocate for it. Therefore, the notion that scientific studies are antithetical to belief in a Creator is unfounded.
It's essential to recognize that scientists merely report their observations and findings from rigorous research and study. There is no overarching global conspiracy against God, as some may believe. Such ideas stem from a particular Christian perspective that perceives a conflict between scientific discoveries and religious texts. However, the existence of various space stations around the world, most notably the International Space Station (ISS) and the Chinese Tiangong station, being two nations that often are seen as the two greatest superpowers, and they are not that friendly with each other, makes it very unlikely that they are for some reason co-operating in a global conspiracy. The notion of a global conspiracy among all these nations to disprove God's existence is implausible and lacks purpose or feasibility.

Conclusion:

As someone not deeply entrenched in this specific theory but acquainted with the Quran's teachings on creation, I offer the following conclusion:
The Quran appears to align more with the acceptance of the theory of evolution than with its denial. And at times, it seems to miraculously speak of it before man even proposed it as a theory.
Quran says nothing about the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib. That belief snuck into Muslim thought from the Judeo-Christian traditions (Isra’iliyyat) and the Hadiths, so that's nothing that Muslims have to believe in. While Adam's unique creation is emphasized, the existence of a species closely resembling humans that he came from is not necessarily denied. If we entertain the notion of human descent from apes, the ancestors of Adam could have been creatures like Australopithecus afarensis, exemplified by the famous fossil "Lucy" discovered in Ethiopia in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis displayed a mix of ape-like and human-like traits, representing a crucial transitional species in human evolution.
It's plausible to consider that all species preceding the first human lacked a soul and merely operated on instincts and impulses, serving to pave the way for the emergence of humanity. This process would have unfolded in accordance with the laws ordained by God. Given this framework, it seems incongruous for God, who established laws dictating gradual development over extended periods, to contravene His own laws in the creation of humans.
With this, I end this article. Thank you for reading! :)
/By Exion.

While i haven't seen this theme in pop culture particularly recently, throughout my life I've periodically come across the idea that living your life without regrets is desirable or should be a priority. I feel like it kind of, makes the rounds i guess, waxing and waning over time. The rise and fall of YOLO being a low hanging fruit example to refer to.
But having regrets isn't some, dishonerable scar on your soul, or emotional maiming. Regrets are a natural by-product of going from the awareness and understanding of a child to the awareness and understanding of an adult that possesses empathy. Our voluntary actions are all we can actually control, but many of us don't comprehend that reality until our senses and knowledge grow. But the things we do in the meantime, before we overcome the activation energy required for that level of self awareness, still affect the abiotic things and living beings around us. Try as we might, even after achieveing that degree of self awareness, our actions sometimes have negative effects on the living beings around us. It's normal, and healthy, to wish that our actions didn't have those negative effects. Even when we didn't intend to cause harm, or couldn't have possibly known that those actions would negatively affect others, it's still natural to wish that we'd taken a different course of action despite the irrationality of the sentiment.
Not having those regrets isn't a good thing. It most likely either indicates one hasn't achieved the degree of self awareness required to analyze how they've affected the world, that they don't care about how they've affected the world, or both.
Now just because a person has regrets doesn't mean that they're automatically a mature, empatheitc person, some regrets are about missed opportunities for ones self rather than how one has affected others. But someone not having any regrets at all, exempting children as they're immature by nature, should be seen as a massive red flag.

The mage known as Paperpusher to some after a long few days entered their apartment, the smell of abiotic fluid and blood still fresh enough to tinge the air with a musky iron like sent. The broken clay pot left untended to, much to the chagrin of the place's only other resident who gave a grumpy meow in protest.
"Yes yes I know," the mage said to the old and sour spirited cat. "I left a mess, and I never leave this kind of mess. I was in a hurry sweetie."
The cat only responded with a blank stare that her roommate took to mean that meant very little to her as HE didn't have to spend all day stuck with the mess. Her silence, in the end, spoke volumes. So while Paperpusher was exhausted and emotionally spent... he spent the next several hours putting his humble abode in order. Mopping up the mess, setting books back into their proper place, changing the litter, paid bills, and somehow he even managed to clean some dishes. On any other day he'd be congratulating himself for doing so well at adulting.
No... now he was just more tired and had a report to fill out before he could try to pass out because it wasn't the right kind of tired. He could chalk it up to the new body throwing his circadian rhythm out of sync, but that was a lie to keep the growing anxiety from taking hold. Two days he'd followed the legions of The God Slaver and their Archons, following reports of new ones being elevated, and witnessing the slaughter and misery that came from it. Having to make use of way portals that were slowly becoming tainted with dark magics, or worse... sickening diseases. Waterdeep had fallen... the first he had heard of it was the refugees clogging the streets looking for shelter and aid. A mass of desperate people crying out for help.
The cat climbed up onto his lap and the mage realized that he had found himself back at his desk without realizing it. A hand began making its way through her tortoiseshell colored fur, the effort being rewarded by a soft and gentle purr.
"You're not allowed to despair yet, because it's not all bad. You have a cat, and that is more than enough for most," he imagined her saying, it brought a smile to their face.
"I can still do something too," he responded as his fingers moved to behind her ears, the old cat's eyes closing in contentment as her purring got louder.
"Later though," she seemed to respond. "I'm grumpy and you still need to apologize."
The smile on his lips became a little more sincere. But soon he'd have to get back to work, his other work at the very least...
The writing tablet was set and ready, his connection to the orbnet and secure. Even with the destruction of the Archive one thing had not been breached, it's data protection algorithms and the magical contracts attached to it. It's what he assumed Lord Aldin had used to keep the knowledge of the Archive safe. Even after months of study, Paperpusher could only grasp the barest of concepts that were used by the Cosmic Level Technomancer. if such a label could be applied to the man.
No, he was getting distracted, he had one last duty to do before he got back to working with the refugees that clogged the streets. He had been out gathering information, in the initial plans with Gallus it had only made sense. He was weak in magical ability, and could be kept from the larger plans with little effort as his understanding of them would be limited by his lack of experience. So for now, he could be a branch that could be snipped if needed without risk of threat. A role he had volunteered for once The God Slaver's call had been felt... He still wasn't sure what caused him to do so...
"And now I'm getting distracted again," he chided himself. He was stalling, he couldn't afford to stall.
The report in general went as followed.
Date: April 6th, XXXX
Priority Major-Omega: All senders open, read, then destroy the following record and files per policy AD-X4-0000
The report then came with several attachments, pictures, and the occasional video recording, and more detailed field notes of Paperpusher's escapades over the past two days. All of what he had learned of the Archons and their Master.
Archon of Slaughter ( u/baclavaman )
Name: Unknown
Notes:
The first of the God Slaver's servants to act it seems. They have stuck out on their own, eager to spill blood on the ground first. There are few of The Slaver's servants that seem to display the raw power that they can muster, however their insistence to act alone has already proven to cause them issue. Even while striking out to burn the nearby holy glades near the Slaver's call to arms, they relied on no support and some rumors suggest they might have even butchered the slaves that were assigned to them. Perhaps more so than any Archon, their pride seems to override their good sense, or perhaps they have too much faith in their raw strength? Regardless, interactions with Dragonfly and later Queen Aurethios show that he can be... humbled to some extent when they rush ahead like a raging mad bull. The most surprising thing to come of this might be the fact that the Lord of Slaughter has taken into their employ a lawyer? I can't confirm this but the rumors are there. My own brief interaction with the Archeon however shows their lack of awareness, as even the simplest disguise was able to allow me a brief period to question them during a press conference of sorts. Their conquest of Waterdeep though caught us off guard though, I do not know what to make of it sadly.
Archon of Blight ( u/Mastodon-Just )
Name: The Avatar of Azathoth
Notes:
Unfortunately I have been unable to get close enough to their domain to gather more than rumors, and they seem to be one of two Archons that are determined to have domains to expand from. The Blight Lord has infected the surrounding area of their domain with a disease or series of disease that seem to warp reality. Rumors of growths sprouting from stone and steel, the residences inside twisted into bloated plague beasts that weep with suffering and agony. Little is known what is going on inside this twisted garden of misery, but the beasts within it are slowly spreading across the land like a cancer. Fire seems to have great effect on these creatures, but I can only hope a biomancer of high enough skill can be found to purge the land of this corruption. I fear what might happen if it truly takes hold, or even if it will release its hold even after its creator's defeated.
(/uw Basically I didn't really have time to get too deep into your domain, but it's cool and I think it needs more love! I'm always hyped to see Nurgle like stuff pop up! Anyway, back to the canon, stay awesome!)
Archon of The Tempest ( u/TheSlySilverFoxA )
Name: Aurelia, the Snow Mage
Notes:
The other of the two Archons that seem to have a proper domain they have carved out for themselves. Also one of the few that is known beforehand by some, and to make use of apprentices themselves. As to whatever has happened to those apprentices, I can only guess at. The domain is guarded and expanded by corrupted giants of the mountains as mana spills forth like a wound and shifts the weather wildly outside of the blizzard that from few sightings... left people frozen in place as if caught in their daily lives. Women, men, children, all frozen and kept as statues of- No, I won't dwell on that, I can't right now. If there's a bright side to this, there is evidence of some life remaining in the cities and towns that have been consumed by the storm. I can only guess at how long they might hold out though...
Outside of that blizzard there are already reports of shifting weather patterns all across the world. Sudden droughts in forests, blinding heat in frozen wastelands, tornadoes tearing cities apart. If nothing is done, at best we can hope that this blizzard does not consume the world as famine and hunger will become the norm if these weather patterns aren't kept under control. Worst of all, the closer one gets to the blizzard the more inconsistent way portals and other forms of teleportation seem to work. I was barely able to get away from the encroaching giants after the way portal I had taken had just shut down all of a sudden. I shall have to move onto the next space as best as I can.
(/uw Kind of the same thing, I don't know a lot about your character but I love the idea, and hope you get some more recognition for the fun idea you have here. Back to the in character stuff again!)
Archon of Might ( u/Zyltris )
Name: Gonkgar
Notes:
I am perhaps most disheartened by the new of Gonkgar falling to the influence of The Slaver, but I am not ultimately surprised. Their desire for battle and a challenge can overcome their often friendly nature, making an easy route for the Slaver to influence them. However, rumors surrounding Gonkgar suggest that out of all the Archons, the Slaver has the least amount of control over their Archon of Might. Gonkgar seems to greet his comrades and "master" with the same enthusiasm as usual, it has even been rumored that the Slaver has avoided Gonkgar because of their might, power, and causal risk of them using it. It has also been rumored that The Slaver purposefully avoided their servant's blows. Of course these are unverifiable, but I will break what little professionalism I have left and hope that the man can be freed from such influence. The few interactions I have had with the man leave the impression that he is just... impressionable, not wicked or seeking to cause harm.
Archon of Blasphemy ( u/VictorE06 )
Name: Ethan, Elven Runesmith
Notes:
The only Archon I have found myself directly against so far, and it cost me a great deal. By his own words he is a warrior spurned by the Gods but his... anger goes deeper than that. He had answered the call of Ithacar during it's most recent time of crisis. A crisis it is still recovering from...
The warrior had marched out from what I can tell and blames their weakness for its destruction. This is a man overwhelmed by an unjust feeling of self-loathing as far as I can guess. The conversation was brief, but it was welcomed all the same. If at the very least it allowed the evacuation of the city his army had set in its sights. They are a man of honor still, and do not seek to harm "innocents" in their crusade. Sadly anyone who could be consider an innocent are those who refuse or profane the Gods as a whole. Meaning much of any populace is guilty by association at best. However his sword can be slowed, perhaps even stopped by someone who has better words to use than I ,especially if it is someone who also has no love for The Gods. If I'm able to suggest, I think the words of someone like Queen Aurethios or Lady Marna could reach him best. But that is just a... possibly foolish hope. He removed my head in the end, and I'm down one clone because of it. Last of all, from what I can tell much of The Slaver's army marches with this man, or at least a large portion of it does.
The God Slaver ( u/RAGE_CAKES )
Name: The God Slaver
Notes:
Honestly I feel that the rumors I hear, and seeing how the Archons I've been able to observe act, I can only guess that their goal is nothing less than total annihilation of... everyone. A slow and painful death under the whip, our minds warped to think that we're better off than the corpses of our loved ones and friends. I have seen him... once. The image is burned in my mind and I find haunting my dreams. I fear what might happen if it reaches my waking moments. But for now I am holding strong, I am still myself and am determined to REMAIN myself. I can only guess at the kind of influence the Slaver has over their minions, there is some sort of magical control over their thoughts and actions to a degree yes, but the subservience is... believed to be real. The Blasphemer for example praised the Slaver like some avenging God, The Slaughterer like an honorable Lord, Gonkgar apparently even greets the monster like an old friend. What influence might it be exercising over me then? I... I can't dwell on that. This report is finished.
Paperpusher set the tablet down and reviewed their work, a voice in the back of their mind whispered that he must be going mad... It had to be the only reasonable response at this point. He was just an overworked social worker and archivist a few days ago after all. It'd be better to jus-
"NO!" He shouted, standing and scattering the cat to the corners of their apartment in fright. "I will NOT!"
His words echoed through the empty rooms, unanswered, but defiant all the same.
/uw And that's it! The idea is for this to be the start of a record of what going on in a more concise form? I know I haven't gotten to everyone yet and I plan to. I'm not going to tag who this is going to because it's meant to be a "secret" message, but to the other archons of various professions. Being-
u/odinall_father The Archon of Sinew u/Intruder-Alert-1 The Archon of War u/Krossed_Wyres The Archon of Survival And especially u/Drunken_polish_cow cat Jinx who is the Archon of Silliness. Who has yet to decide whether to try to kill me or not and has currently captured me if that's something the silly, adorable cat, still wants to do.
With that in mind. I do mean to get to the domains of Blight and Tempest, and do let me know if I missed anyone. For those of you PLAYING the Archons, this is meant to be outside of your character's immediate knowledge at least. Please respect that, I just want to give credit where credit is due as I'm liking all of these delightfully evil people.
Regardless
PEACE! I need to get to bed... I sleepy boy.

Here's another one, my own:
Cursed Technique: Fate
Doom : User spreads a thin layer of CE around them for 200 meters in every direction. In this field, they are aware of everything that produces, stores or has CE. This is crucial for the ability to work. The user then can target objects, biotic and abiotic(objects with CE, ex. Slaughter Demon), to inflict Doom upon. This includes Cursed Techniques used by the opponent, and Cursed tools as well. Naturally, anyone who can sense CE will become aware of this field if they weren't already. Note that field of CE is not enough for techniques like Nobara's Straw Doll Technique: Resonance***.***
Doom works by eating away at a targets CE, at a rate that scales with the strength disparity between the opponent and the caster. It cannot be seen by those without CE(obviously), but it's effects are seen by those who possess CE as thousands of black pinpricks appearing and piercing into their skin seemingly doing nothing. When the target's CE falls below 10% of the Caster's own Maximum CE, the color in their bodies will fade, their bodies(clothing and accessories, not including Cursed tools) turning black (pure black) before disintegrating into specs of black ash. The less targets Doom is inflicted on, the quicker they will disintegrate. For example, a Grade 2 Sorcerer with Fate would be able to exorcise Grade 4 curses in 0.1 seconds individually and Grade 3 curses within 2-3 seconds. This would scale for them going up to 10 seconds for a Grade 2 and 1.5 minutes for a Grade 1(assuming they survive that long, they are an Grade 2 sorcerer ofc). There will be a large jump to Special-Grades, by hitting times like 30 mins - 1 hour. The technique will stop if the opponent leaves your CE field, but they will not recover the lost CE unless they do it artificially or have time for natural regen to replenish it.
Consecutive hits from Doom cut down the death timer by half each time. CE drained by Doom is added to you after the opponent is fully disintegrated, not before, not after. A binding vow can be made to alter the conditions of your ability( less CE drained, or no death at the end, in exchange for receiving CE during the fight.) You can imbue your body or weapon in a Doom aura to wield in a fight.
Doom: Maximum Output
Doom: Maximum Output is an instant kill technique that uses 2.5 times more energy than a regular Doom. This is only usable when in direct contact with your target. The technique checks the target's CE amount, if the CE is less than 25% of the caster or their CE quality is less in anyway by a significant amount, the target instantly disintegrates. Using it on a target already inflicted with Doom speeds up their death timer by whatever amount.
Death's Embrace
Death's Embrace is a higher leveled technique that functions essentially the same as Sukuna's Hollow Wicker Basket. By enveloping you body and everything 1 inch off of it in a dense Doom Aura, you can eat away at CE thrown at you. this is an effective stopgap measure against Domain Expansions and their sure-hit effects. Note that this only works against things that have CE and not inanimate objects like stone or debris.
Cursed Technique Reversal: Grace
Cursed Technique Reversal: Grace, unlike Doom and the gloominess that comes with it, Grace is a bright technique. It appears as Golden pinpricks coming off of the target. Within your CE field, you can empower targets with buffs, healing them to a certain extent, increasing durability and giving them a level of defense against CE. This technique performs less than RCE (positive energy/reverse cursed technique), more than standard CE reinforcement and somewhat equal to someone shielding themself from CE using their own CE. Unlike Doom that drains CE, Grace gives your target a set amount of CE at the end of the technique. CE still leaves you when you end the imbuement on a Cursed tool, except it simply dissipates.
Cursed Technique Reversal Maximum Output: Destiny
This a technique that uses little to no cursed energy to perform. It can only be used once a day. Only possible through the usage of binding vows. If you fall/die in combat and this technique was cast prior to it, you will be resurrected with 75% your Maximum CE and a falling CE output. After 1 hour, you will be rendered unable to manipulate your CE for 24 hours.
Domain Expansion: Purgatory
(The interior of the domain can be up to you want, the constants will be the freezing temperature, and having 95% of the domain covered in darkness)
Domain Expansion: Purgatory 's Sure-hit effect shreds all defenses that an opponent has to blocking Doom. This does not include techniques that negate sure-hit effects, but other methods like making yourself more durable through the use of CE or reinforcement. Doom is inflicted upon targets in the domain every 5 seconds automatically for no CE cost. The Opponent(s) CE will flow more sluggishly with each Doom that is inflicted on them.
-------------------------------------------------
Cursed Technique: Fate is an ability that focuses heavily on offense with limited defense. Defensive techniques to pair with this are limited to CE reinforcement(that i'm aware of).
It's effective against single target enemies, dealing immense damage to their fighting ability in a short time. A binding vow can be made to limit the target Doom can affect in exchange for a shorter Death Timer. The Death Timer, if I wasn't clear earlier is the time it takes for the CE in your opponent to hit 10%. The enemy will weaken with every passing second.= until death.
Using reversed cursed energy to nullify Doom is a viable option for your opponents. The RCE used to nullify it will have to equal the amount used to inflict it. This has a reduced effectiveness inside the Domain Expansion: Purgatory.
It's user will excel in dealing with large amounts of small scale curses that most others simple do not have the time to bother exorcising like fly heads, or other nuisances, though it will cost more CE because they have to individually target each curse with Doom. A temp binding vow can be made to change the single target to AOE for a weaker Doom. Possible job oppurtunity? That said, the user will also excel in single target exorcisms due to the deadliness that they possess. They would be at their least effectiveness when fighting a small group of powerful opponents. This is because the user would be forced to switch between focusing on each opponent separately while fending themselves off. Getting consecutive hits with Doom would be hard(not impossible).
This technique and all of it's variations only work on or against things that have CE. This means humans, curses, cursed tools, cursed techniques, shikigami, talisman, barriers, cursed objects, domains.
This means, that this power does not affect or works less effectively against opponents like, Hanami, Toji Fushiguro, Plants, Buildings, doors, corpses(unless they have CE for some odd reason), Maki, and etc.
If you use it, Credit me! - MagamataMask
:D

Hello I am in New York zone 7a. I have a question about running bamboo and it's shooting time.
Is the time of each species shooting dependent on photoperiod, temperature or both?
If say the temperature of the soil is the determining factor, then by that assumption suppose late winter one year the temperatures soared into say the 70s , for example. Assume these temperatures stayed for several weeks. Would bamboo then shoot?
Like their flowering schedule, does bamboo have an internal clock that tells it when to shoot? Or does it use abiotic variables to determine when it will shoot. If so, what are they?
Thank you for any helpful information or direction to sources where I can find more information. Google searches yield little information and I don't know where else to look.
Thank you... And best of luck spring shoot 2024.

My understanding is that density dependent is where a factor only limits a population if the number of individuals reach a certain level, and the effect of the impact is greater the more individuals there are and is usually a biotic factor whereas density independent is where it affects all populations regardless of density and is usually abiotic. However, how is there any way to distinguish the two? they both have the same characteristics do they not? for example, natural disasters such as floods or wildfires impact individuals regardless of the density BUT it also has a greater effect the more dense the population is? or a virus which is considered density dependent still affect a community no matter the size and also affects more individuals the more individuals there are? do these overlap or am i thinking it

The link below is to a paper that basically cheerleads the (relatively) current state of abiogenesis research. It is about 40 pages, and fairly in-depth and comprehensive. I came across it while looking for developments in deriving AMP from abiotic sources, as some of the current attempts at generating chiral nucleotides depends upon it, ASSUMING its presence to facilitate various processes. Long story made short, the contributors are too honest in the summary (page 31), stating the quiet part out loud.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00546
For example: “Many of the metabolism inspired chemistries taking clues from extant biology also fall in this category, creating prebiotic clutter and nothing further. None of the above have led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution.”

The link below is to a paper that basically cheerleads the (relatively) current state of abiogenesis research. It is about 40 pages, and fairly in-depth and comprehensive. I came across it while looking for developments in deriving AMP from abiotic sources, as some of the current attempts at generating chiral nucleotides depends upon it, ASSUMING its presence to facilitate various processes. Long story made short, the contributors are too honest in the summary (page 31), stating the quiet part out loud.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00546
For example: “Many of the metabolism inspired chemistries taking clues from extant biology also fall in this category, creating prebiotic clutter and nothing further. None of the above have led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution.”

Quick note after further experimenting: I'm not sure if it's the required increase to focus/creativity, vector changes, forced discipline of word choice, or the needed extra computation, but I'm noticing seemingly overall improved outputs when having the model approache certain tasks this way. Not sure what to make of this.

Original post:

I spent the weekend conducting a bit of experimentation with GPT-4, with a goal to better understand the limitations in regards to mathematical reasoning and the ability to adhere to strict output guidelines. I have some understanding of how tokenization works and the issues it causes with the models ability to count words. However, I had success with performing long multiplication in part due to the use of grouping and labeling as seen here ( https://youtu.be/KqjNCuzNRH8 ), so I approached word counts similarly by having the model wrap each word and pair it with a number, it's tag, (1- Like) (2- so). The goal was increased attention to the # and recognition of each word as a whole, rather than the token.
After some trial and error via API chat completions, I'm receiving remarkably accurate output, if not exact, using this self-tag technique. The ability to generate with such cohesiveness along with the foresight to cleanly bring the peice to a close at the desired mark was damn impressive.
Here’s one of the generations, an exact 300 word essay, as it happened. I'll include the actual output with the tagging removed at the end of the post:
https://youtu.be/NFzGApBw8P8
It appears GPT-4's ability to accurately conform to a specified word count is absolutely possible when using a self-tagging approach to increase its attention ability. Is this just an example of algorithmic design, or an emergent property?
Additionally, the model’s ability to structure content as if it had foresight, especially in the context of a fixed word limit, suggests a level of sophistication beyond basic next-token prediction. What mechanisms within GPT-4 might facilitate this apparent planning? What other areas can be improved with this concept of having the model essential label it's own data at the output level?

Full output below:

User: 'Write me a 300 word essay on the ecology of the desert cactus'
Assistant:
"The desert cactus stands as a unique beacon of resilience in the harshest of environments. Its ecology is a complex web of interactions with various abiotic and biotic factors. Survival in the desert calls for exceptional adaptations, which cacti have in spades. Firstly, their thick skin reduces water loss. Significantly, they possess spines instead of leaves, minimizing the surface area for transpiration. The roots of desert cacti spread wide to capture sparse rainfall, while their stems store water for dry periods.
In terms of reproduction, the vibrant flowers attract pollinators, ensuring genetic diversity. Moreover, they offer shelter and sustenance to desert wildlife, thus playing a pivotal role in the desert ecosystem.Their presence assists in soil stability and prevents erosion by anchoring the sand.
Cacti are also a crucial component in the desert food web, serving as a resource for birds, insects, and mammals. Some species even rely on the cactus exclusively for water and nourishment during droughts. The relationship between cacti and desert inhabitants is symbiotic as some animals help in seed dispersal, thereby aiding cacti in propagation.
However, human activity and climate change are threatening these ecosystems. Habitat destruction, illegal collection, and the introduction of non-native species have the potential to disrupt the delicate balance. Desert cacti are adapted to survive extreme heat and aridity, but they are not invincible.
Conservation efforts must be enacted to protect these resilient plants and their roles within the ecosystem. Cacti epitomize the beauty and complexity of desert ecology, a testament to life's perseverance. Even in adversity, they thrive and contribute to the biodiversity of their arid habitats. It is essential that we recognize and maintain the significance of desert cacti, not only for their intrinsic value but also for the survival of desert ecosystems and the myriad forms of life therein." (300 words)

I need format like this for Paper 2This writing belongs to Paper 1 writing. Topics of case studies and examples
·
Topic 1-Foundations
There are certain areas of focus like Foundations, where detailing on modern environment movement on Earth day, Minamata disaster has to be done. Sustainability focusing on the types of capital requires understanding of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. A comprehensive understanding of the origin, uses and impact of pollution like DDT is needed.
·
Topic 2-Ecosystems and ecology
Prepare yourselves with examples on sub topic like Species and Population. The key terms are niche, realised niche, parasitism, predation, mutualism, herbivory, disease, competition. Communities and ecosystems are explained with examples on food chain, bioaccumulation, and bio magnification. You need to learn a detailed example on Flows of energy and matter where you get to learn concepts on deforestation, oxidation, combustion of fossil fuels. You need to precisely compare and contrast between the r-and k-strategies, biomes, and zonation. You need to be pro with each case study on primary and secondary succession. Case studies focus on five abiotic components.
·
Topic 3-Biodiversity and conservation
You are to learn a detailed case study of three different species: extinct, endangered, and whose conservation status has been improved by intervention. The impact of human activity on biodiversity of tropical biomes requires your detailed analysis. Also, focus on concepts like sustainability and conservation in tropical biomes.
·
Topic 4-Water
The topic requires good fundamentals based on the hydrological cycle impact on various factors like agriculture, deforestation, urbanisation. You get a detailed case study on the reason for shared freshwater resources impacting international conflict. Detailed case studies on controversial hunting, unsustainable fishing and fishery, aquaculture or for that matter freshwater and marine population are happening issues for your case studies. Don’t forget to learn the examples on water pollution.
·
Topic 5-Soil
This topic starts with a detailing on the terrestrial food production system and food choices. You need to grab examples on industrial and subsistence farming.
·
Topic 6-Atmosphere
The example of Montreal Protocol in reducing the emissions of ozone-depleting substances is very popular. Exemplify the topic with the examples on aquatic, terrestrial, and human systems.
·
Topic 7-Climate change and energy
Causes and impacts of climatic changes with the examples of energy sources and security. You will get a detailed case study on the energy security and strategies of a given country. Get to learn the examples of advantages and disadvantages of various energy forms like oil, coal, gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, tidal, biomass, and geothermal. Tow detailed examples of climate change with claims and counter claims are needed. You also get to learn about the climate change and mitigation techniques. Examples on AI Gore and The Stern Report are good ones as reference. You get to analyse international efforts of addressing the climate changes with the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and the IPCC.
·
Topic 8-Human systems
Human systems require examples of HICs and LICs with 2 case studies on pro-natalist and anti-natalist policies. 1 case study from renewable and non-renewable resource with examples on supporting, regulating, provisioning, cultural need to be handled. Landfills, incinerators, composting, the 6Rs are the examples of 4 types of solid domestic waste. You get to learn the ecological footprints in HIC and LIC.

Hark the climate change / global warming hoax gospel – a gross exaggeration at best that now assumes a religion status – albeit a blind ‘cult’ following is a more apt description – sermonised, with a touch of high octane green zealotry, by those virtue-signalling High Priests of the Temple of Woke Hypocrisy – sans regard for, or reflection on, the ‘Mission Impossible’ Cop26 net zero carbon emissions targets that the likes of career eco-violators India, the People’s Utopia of China, Russia, South America’s tree-lopping Amazonia nations - and Indonesia - (the latter blighted by continual mass deforestation and peatland megafires across their 13,000 islands) - and are not remotely interested in complying with, due more pressing concerns - specifically meeting gross domestic industrial output targets – and the profit-motivated requirements of their eco’-abusive ruling oligarchies.
Ergo, extreme weather events are not down to this climate change myth – or the industrial activities of mankind as the causal agent – a factor wholly ignored by the previous IPCC chair, Neanderthal Man throwback, Rajendra Pachauri, whose only science-based qualification for the IPCC’s top dog job lay with his past employment and training as a Indian railways mechanic.
The IPCC-promoted – and compliant mass media driven – fairy tale narrative viz 'cosmic origin' climate change, sans any format of empirical evidence and based on corrupt computer modelling and the gospel according to Columbian-born urbanist - and the COP's climate change Messiah - Carlos Moreno - has morphed and metastasized into a misguided climate science cult belief – a chimera - and one of massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience - and reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the welfare of the global population with pocket-sized 15-minute cities - aka social credit system detention centres.
In turn, the commercialised climate change fabrication has become a scapegoat for a mass of unrelated ills, and is promoted and extended by ‘for profit’ business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and dipshit greenie environmentalists on the make.
This commercial money-grubbing pseudoscience climate alarmist hoax is yet another ‘Do / Don’t do’ control freak mechanism to dominate and manipulate the common herd sheeple – with such scare-mongering 'carbon allowance' absurdities as if you don’t rip out your fireplace and gas central heating boiler and instal a £10,000 quid heat pump then the seas will boil over and all the fish die – including the cuddly dolphins.
The real danger is not from aberrant weather patterns but rather from profit-motivated misinformation and pseudoscience viz climate change, and a draconian switch from reliable fuel sources to these wind turbines and solar panel farms to power national grids – which work to 50% efficiency, if we’re lucky, when the wind blows n the sun shines – and the obligatory Tesla saloon’s flat battery can finally be boosted – to capacity – once you’ve pushed it to the nearest re-charging point.
Reliable sources of ‘abiotic’ (no, not fossil fuel) oil n gas, as yet untapped - vs net zero unreliable clean energy renewables. Politicians are too busy – and blindsided trying to win brownie points thus lose sight of the fact that unless a nation is energy independent it loses control of its own economy – and destiny.
As the Sun nears the peak of this current 11-year cycle, at the end of 2024 and into the opening days of 2025, we’ll experience an increase in the number of sunspots - massive fields of magnetic pressure on the surface of the Sun.
These in turn erupt as a coronal mass ejections, with charged plasma expelled from the Sun’s bowels – and if this ejecta travels in the direction of our planet, it consists of charged particles, propelled via the solar winds at the Earth, where they interact with our atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen to create the colours of the Aurora Borealis – and Aurora Australis – and invoke all manner of aberrant weather effect events – a diminished magnetosphere, and thinning of the ozone layer - which are then collectively slapped with the erroneous broad brush anthropogenic climate change blame-game logo – as exampled so perfectly by the so-recent 800 mile wide weather front named Storm Agnes (26/09/2023) – (hot on the heels of the previous week’s Hurricane Nigel) sweeping across the Atlantic to blast the British isles with 80mph winds – and a dowry of parmy (rain) sufficient to float a Biblical Ark.
To wit, a message for the likes of the globally-reviled ex-Microslop CEO, Bent Billy Gates (of Hell), and the IPCC wankers – and too the WEF’s Satan Klaus Schlob – along with the elitist Club of Rome onanist creeps - and the Dildoberger cretins - pushing the New Green Deal / Net Zero CO2 agenda - go right ahead with this Woketard scam-a-rama that anthropomorphic activity is the root of all evil – and the primary cause of climate change – and scrap all gasoline n diesel vehicles – and kero’-guzzling airplane flights - to facilitate this net zero carbon wet dream agenda (cold n dark days n nights ahead if we are to rely on solar panel arrays and wind turbine farms).
Yet before you do, just pause momentarily to reflect on the following historical fact.
Lyme Regis – eloquently bestowed with a ‘Pearl of Dorset’ sobriquet in the late Victorian / early Edwardian eras – viewed the advent of the gasoline-powered motor car with hope – that it might solve their ‘pollution problem’ – masses of accumulated horse shit on the seaside town’s highways and byways – and trampled everywhere.
https://rustyskewednewsviews.blogspot.com/2023/10/net-zero-profits-vs-climate-reality.html
Allergy warning: for readers suffering from HSS (Hypersensitive Snowflake Syndrome) – there is no known EpiPen medication remedy for adverse reactions to the 'politically incorrect' – aka the Truth.
This article was composed in a known propaganda-infested area - and whilst purposely blending high octane unorthodox irreverence, slanderous allegations and unbridled conjecture with measures of wild rumour and caffeine-boosted public interest factoids with socio-political satire - may also contain traces of slight exaggeration, modest porkies, misaligned references, 5G electrosmog radiation, and a chemtrail residue of genetically-modified nano-particle bush telegraph innuendo.

Preface

I never knew this sub existed until this post was on my homepage, Reddit algo works well because I do frequent UFOs. Yes, I decided to come clean right at the start just so there isn't any hidden agenda, and now you may know what's coming as a conclusion. But I only ask that you look at what I present with an open mind and give me valid criticism and/or thoughts.

Argument.

The main point of the post is that we should hold panspermia in equal standing to abiogenesis (RNA world hypothesis). I also believe the mainstream is extremely skewed to the abiogensis, even though in my view Panspermia is equally if not a better hypothesis for the origin of life. Do note I'm not arguing against evolution, I believe in evolution, and all of you have the receipts (fossil records).
I will leave this paper here first as I don't want it to get buried at the end. I will also leave a link to a video that would better explain the argument of Panspermia vs Abiogenesis. Now I will shut up and let the science do the talking.

The Science.

Early life on earth.

Ben K.D. Pearce et al. (2018): “Constraining the Time Interval for the Origin of Life on Earth”, Astrobiology, Vol. 18
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2017.1674 https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.09460 (open-access version)
Quote: “The habitability boundary could be as early as 4.5 Ga, the earliest possible estimate of the time at which Earth had a stable crust and hydrosphere, or as late as 3.9 Ga, the end of the period of heavy meteorite bombardment. [...]. Evidence from carbon isotope ratios and stromatolite fossils both point to a time close to 3.7 Ga. Life must have emerged in the interval between these two boundaries. The time taken for life to appear could, therefore, be within 200 Myr or as long as 800 Myr.”
Knoll, A. et al. (2017): “The timetable of evolution”. Science Advances, vol 3, 5.
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.1603076
Quote: “Life, then, appears to have been present when the oldest well-preserved sedimentary rocks were deposited (Fig. 1). How much earlier life might have evolved remains conjectural. Reduced carbon (graphite) in ancient metaturbidites from southwestern Greenland has a C-isotopic composition, consistent with autotrophy (24), and recently, upwardly convex, laminated structures interpreted (not without controversy) as microbialites have been reported as well (25); the age of these rocks is constrained by cross-cutting intrusions that cluster tightly around 3710 Ma (25). A still earlier origin for biological carbon fixation is suggested by a 13C-depleted organic inclusion in a zircon dated at 4100 ± 10 Ma (26), although it is hard to rule out abiological fractionation in this minute sample of Earth’s early interior.”

To qualify as life we need a genome.

Royal Society of New Zealand: “What is a genome”. Gene Editing Technologies (retrieved 2023)
https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/our-expert-advice/all-expert-advice-papers/gene-editing-technologies/what-is-a-genome-2/
Quote: “The characteristics of all living organisms are determined by their genetic material and their interaction with the environment. An organism’s complete set of genetic material is called its genome which, in all plants, animals and microbes, is made of long molecules of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). The genome contains all the genetic information needed to build that organism and allow it to grow and develop.”

Dead things to living?

Trefil, J. et al. (2009): “​​The Origin of Life”. American Scientist, vol. 97, 3.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life
Quote: “The essential problem is that in modern living systems, chemical reactions in cells are mediated by protein catalysts called enzymes. The information encoded in the nucleic acids DNA and RNA is required to make the proteins; yet the proteins are required to make the nucleic acids. Furthermore, both proteins and nucleic acids are large molecules consisting of strings of small component molecules whose synthesis is supervised by proteins and nucleic acids. We have two chickens, two eggs, and no answer to the old problem of which came first.”
Trefil, J. et al. (2009): “​​The Origin of Life”. American Scientist, vol. 97, 3. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life Quote: “The RNA molecule is too complex, requiring assembly first of the monomeric constituents of RNA, then assembly of strings of monomers into polymers. As a random event without a highly structured chemical context, this sequence has a forbiddingly low probability and the process lacks a plausible chemical explanation, despite considerable effort to supply one.”
Walker, S. I. (2017): “Origins of life: a problem for physics, a key issues review”. Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 80, 9 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/aa7804/meta
http://www.esalq.usp.blepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Origins-of-Life---A-Problem-for-Physics--A-Key-Issues-Review.pdf (open-access version)
Quote: “One might, for example, take a purely substrate-level definition for life and conjecture that life is defined by its constituent molecules, including amino acids, RNA, DNA, lipids etc as found in extant life. It then follows that the problem of life’s origin should reduce to identifying how the building blocks of life might be synthesized under abiotic conditions (which as it turns out is not-so-easy). This approach has dominated much of the research into life’s origins since the 1920’s when Oparin and Haldane first proposed the ‘primordial soup’ hypothesis, which posits that life arose in a reducing environment that abiotically synthesized simple organic compounds, concentrated them, and gradually complexified toward more complex chemistries and eventually life [40]. In 1953 Miller demonstrated that organic molecules, including amino acids, could be synthesized in a simple spark-discharge experiment under reducing conditions [41]. At the time, there was such optimism that the origin of life problem would soon be solved that there was some expectation that life would crawl out of a Miller-Urey experiment within a few years. This has not yet happened, and there seem to be continually re-newed estimates that artificial or synthetic life is just a few years away. This suggests a radical re-think of the problem of origins may be necessary [39].”

Part 2

Hit chatacter limit, find part 2 below, https://reddit.com/DebateEvolution/s/QHLGuj5Xth

Is spontaneous generation/abiogenesis possible? The biggest hurdle for the theory of evolution is the creation of the first cell, since the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation are inapplicable at that point. Instead, the first self-replicating cell had to occur by random probabilistic chance. Many evolutionists, when they feel candid, have made concessions on this subject, which destroys the intellectual foundation of their entire materialistic worldview. For example, the physicist H.S. Lipson, Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138, once conceded. “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Obviously, he made this public admission only under the strongest kind of intellectual compulsion; he wasn’t optimistically sanguine about the possibility that spontaneous generation could have occurred. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199 admitted the philosophical inconsistency of his own side about this matter: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: Namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” Dr. George Wald, a Nobel prize winner and Harvard biology professor, “The Origin of Life,” The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon and Shuster, 1955), p. 9, made this concession: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” If Christians had the same amount of faith as this evolutionist, they would be moving mountains daily as warm-up exercises! Perhaps for this reason and others, Wald eventually ended up embracing some kind of pantheism, although he was an agnostic or atheist when making this confession. The results of “origin of life experiments” and other research haven’t improved the situation any since the mathematician J.W.N. Sullivan, Reader’s Digest, January 1963, p. 92, confessed: “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.”
So with a sufficient number of eons and oceans, would life inevitably occur by chance? Time cannot be the hero of the plot for evolutionists when even many billions of years are insufficient. But this can only be known when the mathematical probabilities involved are carefully quantified, which is crucial to all scientific observations. That is, specific mathematical equations describing what scientists observed need to be set up in order to describe how likely or unlikely this or that event was. But so long as evolutionists tell a general “just-so” story without specific mathematical descriptions, much like the ancient pagan creation myths retold over the generations, many listeners will find their tale persuasive. For example, upon the first recounting, listeners may find it plausible to believe the evolutionists’ story about the first living cell arising by random chance out of a “chemical soup” in the world’s oceans. But after specific mathematical calculations are applied to their claim, it is plainly absurd to believe in spontaneous generation, which says life comes from non-living materials. At one academic conference of mathematicians, engineers, and biologists entitled, “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution,” (published 1967) these kinds of probabilities were applied to evolutionary claims. One professor of electrical engineering at the conference, Murray Eden, calculated that even if a common species of bacteria received five billion years and was placed an inch thick on the earth, it couldn’t create by accident a pair of genes. Many other specific estimates like these could easily be devised to test the truthfulness of Darwinism, including the likelihood of various transitional forms of plants and animals being formed by chance mutations and natural selection.
The astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Evolution From Space,” p. 24, once described the chances against certain parts of the first living cell to occur by random chance through a chemical accident. “Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides; it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme [an organic catalyst--a chemical which speeds up chemical reactions--EVS]. The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone [substrate] can hardly be greater than on part in 10[raised by]15, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than on part in 10 [raised by]5. Because the fine details of the surface shape [of the enzyme in a living cell--EVS] can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not “piling on the agony” by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities are enough. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in 10[raised by]20 of obtaining the required in a functioning form [when randomly created by chance out of an ocean of amino acids--EVS]. By itself , this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials as are supposed to have occurred in an organize soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 [raised by]20)2000 = 10 [raised by]40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely our of court.” To put this calculation into some kind of context, the number of electrons within the universe that can be observed by mankind’s largest earth-based telescopes is approximately 10 raised by the 87 and the number of atoms is about 10 raised to the 80. By contrast, these two astronomers maintain the chances of spontaneous generation is one out of one followed by 40,000 zeros, which would require about five pages of a standard-sized magazine to print.
Let’s consider another colorful concession by Sir Fred Hoyle (“The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, vol. 92 (November 19, 1981), p. 527, emphasis removed: “At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. [Henry Morris comments that there are 4 X 10 raised to the 19 power combinations of the Rubik Cube]. Now imagine 10 raised to 50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of all of them simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arried at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe both became believers in pantheism and panspermia, the belief that life originated on other planet(s) in outer space, because they saw no way that life could have arisen on earth by purely mechanistic biochemical processes.
Bill Bryson, is a good, solid evolutionist and the author of the popular level (and very colorfully written) history and explanation of science, “A Short History of Nearly Everything.” Nevertheless, he perceives the problems with the theory that the organization of the chemicals needed to sustain biological life happened purely randomly (p. 351-352, italics removed): “To spell ‘collagen’, the name of a common type of protein, you need to arrange eight letters in the right order. To make collagen, you need to arrange 1,055 amino acids in precisely the right sequence. But—and here’s an obvious but crucial point—you don’t make it. It makes itself, spontaneously, without direction, and this is where the unlikelihoods come in. The chances of a 1,055-sequence molecule like collagen spontaneously self-assembling are, frankly, nil. It just isn’t going to happen. To gasp what a long shot its existence is, visualize a standard Las Vegas slot machine but broadened greatly—to about 27 metres, to be precise—to accommodate 1,055 spinning wheels instead of the usual three or four. And with twenty symbols on each wheel (one for each common amino acid). How long would you have to pull the handle before all 1,055 symbols came up in the right order? Effectively for ever. Even if you reduced the number of spinning wheels to 200, which is actually a more typical number of amino acids for a protein, the odds against all 200 coming up in a prescribed sequence are 1 in 10 [raised by] 260 (that is 1 a one followed by 260 zeros). That in itself is a larger number than all the atoms is the universe. Proteins, in short, are complex entities. Haemoglobin is only 146 amino acids long, a runt by protein standards, yet even it offers 10 [raised by] 190 possible amino-acid combinations, which is why it took the Cambridge University chemist Max Perutz twenty-three years—a career, more or less—to unravel it. For random events to produce even a single protein would seem a stunning improbability—like a whirlwind spinning through a junkyard and leaving behind a fully assembled jumbo jet, in the colorful simile of the astronomer Fred Hoye. Yet we are stalking about several hundred thousand types of protein, perhaps a million, each unique and each, as far as we know, vital to the maintenance of a sound and happy you. And it goes on from there. To be of use, a protein must not only assemble amino acids in the right sequence, it must then engage in a kind of chemical origami and fold itself in a very specific shape. Even having achieved this structural complexity, a protein is no good to you if it can’t reproduce itself, and proteins can’t. For this you need DNA. DNA is a whiz at replicating—it can make a copy of itself in seconds—but can do virtually nothing else. So we have a paradoxical situation. Proteins can’t exist without DNA and DNA has no purpose without proteins. Are we to assume, then, that they arose simultaneously with the purpose of supporting each other? If so: wow.”
In order for the first self-replicating cell to be created by random chance out of a “prebiotic soup” in the ancient ocean, several major hurdles have to be successfully jumped. 1. The right atmospheric and oceanic meteorological and other conditions must exist. 2. The oceans need to have a sufficient quantity and concentration of “simple” molecules in the “organic soup.” 3. A sufficient number of specifically needed proteins and nucleotides randomly combine together and acquire a semi-permeable membrane around them. 4. They also develop a genetic code using DNA and replicate themselves using RNA and DNA information. Notice that all of this supposedly occurred in the non-observed past; it’s merely assumed to have happened based upon materialistic philosophy projecting its assumptions of naturalism infinitely into the past. It’s equally presumed to never have happened again.
In this context, consider some details of the old “origin of life” experiments of Stanley Miller back in 1953. Using a chosen concoction of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water, he got just four of the 20 amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, for making life. Note also that he had to “save” them from the area of sparks in his lab equipment since what created them also would have destroyed them if he hadn’t removed them by his own deliberate intervention. Even through intentionally contrived, designed experiments over the next 30 years, scientists weren’t able to create all 20 amino acids under the conditions that they deemed to be plausible. And what is arbitrarily being deemed to be “plausible”? Hitching, in the “Neck of the Giraffe,” p. 65 explains the dilemma involved: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.” After all, does anyone really “know” what the earth’s atmosphere was like billions of years ago? Furthermore, even when oxygen is present, sunlight’s ultraviolet radiation remains a deadly enemy of a pro-biotic soup’s complexity. Water “naturally inhibits the development of more complex molecules,” as Hitching admits. The basic problem is that water naturally promotes the breaking up of long molecules, not their generation. George Wald, already quoted from above, points out (“Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, “Scientific American,” August 1954, pp. 49, 50: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” So why would any “pre-biotic soup” ever accumulate to begin with? He saw this as “the most stubborn problem that confronts us.” The principle here is that entropy, as per the second law of thermodynamics, is inevitably much greater than any organizational principle; it’s deception to compare the organization of an inorganic crystal with that of biological life, which would be like confusing the making of a single brick with constructing the Empire State Building.
Now there is another set of problems that confronts the proponents of spontaneous generation. Naturally, over 100 amino acids exist, but only 20 of them are needed for life; the rest are useless junk that would interfere in the generation of life. The molecules, for both amino acids in all proteins and for all nucleotides in nucleic acids, also have to be all “left-handed” in form; not one is “right-handed.” So as the specific details of the pre-biotic soup’s composition are examined, it becomes more and more evident that only very specific kinds of molecules (amino acids and the proteins formed from them) are helpful to generating life; the rest of the randomly generated chemicals would be useless floating junk that would interfere with the evolutionist’s desired outcome. Consider this analogy: Suppose someone had a big pile of white and read beans together that represent this prebiotic soup. There are over a hundred kinds of each one. The red ones are right-handed, and the white ones left-handed. In a random scoop, what is the chance that someone would pull out not only twenty specific “white” ones, but each one would have to be in a specific place and position relative to the others with nothing else interfering or blocking the chemical reactions needed for self-replication? (See generally, “Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation,” pp. 39-45).
Now it’s necessary to keep in mind that protein molecules themselves, let alone RNA and DNA ones, are extremely complex. It has been calculated that the chance for generating even a complex protein molecule is one out of 10 raised to 113, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of electrons in the observable universe, which is roughly 10 raised to the 87. Francis Crick himself, famous for being one of the co-discoverers of the DNA molecule’s role in making life, calculated the chance of making a particular amino acid (polypeptide chain) sequence by chance. If it is 200 amino acids long, which is less than the average length of a protein, there are 20 possibilities at each location in the chain. He calculated that the possibility of having a specific protein to be simply 20 raised by 200, as this is an exercise in calculating combinatorials or factorials. As he concluded, “The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” For these reasons, he confessed: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” (Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), pp, 52, 88.
It’s one thing to have a specific quantity of highly specific proteins in the right positions relative to each other, which is hard enough; it’s quite another to have the machinery in place, using the incredibly complex DNA and RNA molecules, to replicate and manufacture more of them in specifically needed quantities. Scott Andrew, in “Update on Genesis,” in “New Scientist, vol. 106 (May 2, 1985), pp. 31 perceived the “chicken-and-egg” dilemma: “Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself.” Proteins depend on DNA to be formed, yet DNA cannot form without pre-existing proteins. It’s once again the problem of “all or nothing,” which so frequently confronts evolutionists, as per Michael Behe’s mousetrap analogy. Andrew further describes the problem involved (p. 32), “The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery.” So then, he made this honest confession (p. 33): “In their more public pronouncements, researchers interested in the origin of life sometimes behave a bit like the creationist opponents they so despise—glossing over the great mysteries that remain unsolved and pretending they have firm answers that they have not really got. . . . We still know very little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science’s great challenges.” John Horgan, “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, vol. 264 (February 1991), p. 119 conceded how hard it was to create RNA molecules in a laboratory by deliberate intention: “How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), p. 78, proposed the idea that RNA came first, but then noticed two key problems with that hypothesis: “This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of the protein synthesis.”
Another crucial problem is the (simultaneous) formation of the semi-permeable membrane that is needed to protect the delicate chemical machinery of life (i.e., DNA, RNA, and proteins) of a single-celled organism from the hostile outside world. Bill Bryson explains (“A Short History of Nearly Everything, p. 352-353, italics removed) the crucial need for a membrane and the careful organization of the single cell’s parts to function as life: “DNA, proteins and the other components of life couldn’t prosper without some sort of membrane to contain them. No atom or molecule has ever achieved life independently. Pluck any atom from your body and it is no more alive than is a grain of sand. It is only when they come together within the nurturing refuge of a cell that these diverse materials can take part in the amazing dance that we call life. Without the cell, they are nothing more than interesting chemicals. But without the chemicals, the cell has no purpose. As Davies puts it, ‘If everything needs everything else, how did the community of molecules ever arise in the first place?’ It is rather as if all the ingredients in your kitchen somehow got together and baked themselves into a cake—but a cake that could moreover divide when necessary to produce more cakes. It is little wonder that we call it the miracle of life. It is also little wonder that we have barely begun to understand it.” Sure, Bryson, being a good evolutionist, tries to walk back such a concession by arguing that certain chemicals self-assemble, but this assumes that the raw materials could do this without interference from other chemicals or the problems caused by the natural hostility of the action of water, ultraviolet radiation, and aioxygen to making such compounds to begin with in a purely natural (i.e., non-protective, non-artificial) environment. Furthermore, this ability of some molecules to engage in some self-assembly would be like confusing the availability of some Lego brick kits with the materials required to construct the Eiffel Tower.
Much more could be said about the problems that spontaneous generation confronts the proponents of evolution. For example, the problem of the random generation of photosynthesis, the process by which light energy is chanced into chemical energy by plants, could be examined in detail. Once the specifics are examined and detailed, and mathematical calculations are made about the chances of organic molecules being formed, it becomes totally implausible to non-prejudiced minds. Nature can’t always explain nature; the inference to the supernatural is the only reasonable explanation when confronted with such high odds. Sir Fred Hoyle once compared the chance of life’s formation through random organization to that of “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, “Evolution from Space” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 184, made this point against those who believe in a purely materialistic origin of life by random chance: “No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe it not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the waste paper baskets for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material. . . . The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter if one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. . . . It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this plant nor on another other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” When it is recalled who makes this kind of concession, men who had been utterly materialistic skeptics, it is devastating to anyone trying to making the case that life had a purely mechanistic, random origin in the mixing of chemicals.
Many of these criticisms of Hoyle’s and Wickramasinghe’s calculations don’t add up because even if they were off by one or even two orders of magnitude in the number of organic catalysts needed for a single cell to function downwards, their calculations are still enough to destroy the theory of evolution’s foundation. If they are off in a downwards direction, the agony for abiogenesis is merely increased. Criticisms that they are out of their field of astronomy don’t work well, when so often the experts really have been wrong even within their own fields. Do doctors and lawyers make mistakes in their fields of expertise? Well, yes. Can laypeople be right and doctors wrong? Yes, as successful medical malpractice lawsuits demonstrate. In this context I’m reminded of this colorful comment by Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), who was the British prime minister at the end of Queen Victoria’s reign: "No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you never should trust the experts. If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require to have their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.”
Let’s examine the fundamental problems with Stanley Miller’s experiment, which is the wild extrapolation involved to go from having (originally) just four) amino acids to having self-replicating life. It would be like finding a few bricks, and then claiming one was well on the road to building the Empire State Building. All the complexities of RNA and DNA synthesis, and their complex interactions to make proteins out of amino acids, are being discounted. To explain the daunting task involved for life to occur by chance via a chemical accident, the steps from mere “chemistry” to “biology” would be, to cite “The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check,” by Change Laura Tan and Rob Stadler, p. 67, would be as follows (I’ve inserted the numbers): 1. Formation and concentration of building blocks. 2. Homochirality of building blocks. 3. A solution for the water paradox. 4. Consistent linkage of building blocks. 5. Biopolymer reproduction. 6. Nucleotide sequences forming useful code. 7. Means of gene regulation. 8. Means for repairing biopolymers. 9. Selectively permeable membrane. 10. Means of harnessing energy. 11. Interdependence of DNA, RNA, and proteins. 12. Coordinated cellular purposes. Miller’s experiment, and others like his that try to create amino acids, haven’t even completed step 1 yet.
After Miller died in 2007, Jeffrey Bada, who had been one of his graduate students, reanalyzed some of Miller’s 50-year-old experimental samples. He added another experiment with H2S to the reducing environment, it’s true that he found 10 of the 20 common acids needed for life. A key problem, however, was the common presence of other amines, amino acids, and other molecules that aren’t found in life and would block or interfere with the formation of a living, self-replicating cell. So then there’s a common bias in which scientific reports on origin of life experiments play up the relatively rare or sparse chemical products that are associated with life while downplaying the predominant chemicals or molecules that don’t and would indeed even interfere with progress towards life.
Although it’s asserted that the conditions of earth’s purportedly early atmosphere would not be a barrier to life’s spontaneous generation/abiogenesis, that’s hardly the case. There have been and continue to be a lot of debates about something which really can’t be verified or proven with any degree of certainty since it can’t be presently tested, reproduced, verified, observed, and/or predicted. For example, in 2011 Dustin Trail and his colleagues at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute examined the state of oxidation in cerium that appear in zircons that are believed to be as old as the earth is. They found the oxidation state of the cerium was much higher than they had expected. As a result, they suggested that the pre-biotic synthesis should start with a totally different set of gases, such as CO2, SO2, H2O, and N2. So Bruce Watson (“Early Earth’s atmosphere was similar to present-day one,” Science News, 2011), “We can now say with some certainty that many scientists studying the origins of life on Earth simply picked the wrong atmosphere.” So how can one say with certainty that that we really “know” what earth’s early atmosphere was like to conduct such experiments when this level of subjectivity exists? Trail and his colleagues’ experiments, which used a more neutral atmosphere, had a lower diversity of amino acids, and a lower yield than the reducing (oxygen poor) atmosphere that Miller had used.
It’s worth thinking about the intrinsic subjectivity of two of the three criteria that Leslie Orgel came up with as requirements for pre-biotic requirements: “1. It must be plausible, at least to the proposers of abiotic synthesis, that the starting materials for a synthesis could have been present in adequate amounts at the site of synthesis.” Well, how much would be needed? This is mere guesswork. Then there’s this equally subjective point: “3. The yield of the product must be ‘significant’ at least in the view of the proposers of the synthesis.” (L.E. Orgel, “Prebiotic chemistry and the origin of the RNA world.” Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2004. 39(2): 99-123. Well, if someone really wants to believe that life occurred by chance, it would be easy for him or her to believe there are enough starting materials and sufficient yield for a synthesis to occur.
Let’s consider in this context the claim that various building blocks of life could develop spontaneously by considering major intrinsic limitations to their developing sufficiently to overcome the enumerated list of hurdles given above. Long ago, in 1971, the Nobel Laureate Manfred Eigen said that the length of a pre-biotic molecule such as RNA is intrinsically limited to the error rate that occurs during replication. Longer molecules create more errors when replication occurs, and then too many errors over many generations create biological disaster. He found that living organisms have to have error correction occurring during replication in order to avoid disastrous errors when making long DNA molecules. However, the Catch-22 is that the same error-correction mechanisms themselves must be encoded in the same very long DNA molecules to stop too many errors from occurring. Hence, there’s Eigen’s paradox, in which a self-replicating molecule has a functional limit of 100 nucleotides without error-correcting mechanisms, but the error-fixing systems themselves have to be built within molecules that are significantly longer than this basic limit. So it’s necessary to come up with a self-replicating RNA molecule that will gain information over millions of generations, instead of blowing itself up, if the grand “monocell-to-man” theory of evolution is true. Furthermore, Eigen’s paradox doesn’t deal with all the forces that would tend to inhibit and destroy a self-replicating RNA molecule chain, such as accumulated damage from radiation, pathogens, chemical mutagens, oxidation, alkylation, and even water itself, which would require even more mechanisms engaged in molecular repair.
Another major hurdle for spontaneous generation to leap over is the water paradox. Even if the required chemical building blocks are readily available in sufficient quantities in water, water itself block their linking together (“polymerization.”) James Tour, in “Animadversions of a synthetic chemist,” 2016, observed that water can both aid and hinder the linking of organic molecules: “Organic synthesis is very hard to do in water. Highly oxygenated organic compounds are needed. The synthetic chemist must project the oxygenated groups out toward the water domain, and project the non-oxygenated groups in toward each other, thus generating a hydrophobic domain. It is very hard to do.” For example, the polymerization reactions that make RNA and DNA from nucleotides, and those that create proteins out of amino acids, produce one molecule of water for each monomer that’s added. So then, when water is present, which works as a universal solvent, it drives these reactions in the wrong way. Nick Lane said this situation is “a bit like trying to wring out a wet cloth under water.” (See p. 64, “The Vital Question,” 2016, New York: Norton & Company). One report recently claimed that they had gotten around this problem some, but they did it by the contrivance of forming the peptide bonds in water by having ferricynide and hydrogen sulfide stored separately and then added sequentially in separate steps. So the ferricynide had to be added, washed away, then the hydrogen sulfide had to be put in, and then washed away, for each amino acid joined to the chain. That isn’t exactly a plausible natural condition in a prebiotic soup, now is it?
When confronted with these kinds of calculations that show life couldn’t have occurred by biochemical accident, atheistic and agnostic evolutionists may resort to two potential escape hatches. One of them is the “multiverse” metaphysical concept. When there isn’t enough space, matter, and time to create life by chance in the universe that we humans can sense, they argue that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. Given an infinite amount of time, matter, and space, life indeed could have occurred by chance. Peter T. Mora, “The Folly of Probability,” in “The Origins of Prebiological Systems, ed. Sydney Fox (New York: Academic Press, 1965), p. 45, perceives the problem with engaging in such philosophical inquiries: “I believe we developed this practice (i.e., postulating prebiological natural selection) to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-replicating state is zero. . . . . When for practical purposes the concept of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, that concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that, no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and immeasurably.” Notice that the existence of “multiverses” parallel to our universe can’t be proven experimentally or sensed directly. It’s merely the secular version of invoking a unrepeatable miracle to prove that something occurred in the unobserved past. Furthermore, as the creationist David F. Coppedge observed, “There’s Only One Universe,” Back to Genesis, No. 216, December 2006, p. d, the blunt tool of “Occam’s Razor would surely prefer a single Designer to uncountable universes.” This concept also contradicts the big bang theory, which maintains that the universe had a beginning, instead of being eternal. By invoking parallel “multiverses,” the evolutionists are obviously engaged in a post-hoc modification to escape the falsification of their theory by simple mathematical calculations.
Then there’s another escape hatch that evolutionists will resort to at this point, with their backs against a metaphysical wall as they face a statistical firing squad: “Everything is rare.” For example, if we drive to work, the car in front of us will have a license plate number. If there are (say) 4 million cars with license plates in that state, the a priori chance of driving behind that particular car with another one is one in four million in a given day. The absurdity of this kind of argument can be easily exposed. For example, in order to play Mega Millions, players choose six different numbers for each lottery ticket. The chance of winning the jackpot is officially pegged at 1 in 302,575,350. A priori, the chance of each computer-generated “easy pick” ticket winning this jackpot is the same as the ticket that actually does win the jackpot. Furthermore, the six numbers on each ticket are just as unlikely to be randomly generated as those on any other. So if a player buys a ticket with a randomly chosen number, it’s just as “rare” as any other. However, almost of these equally “rare” tickets are utterly, completely worthless. The only one that matters is the one chosen by the organization managing the lottery. Likewise, almost all the “rare” biochemical events that would occur in a prebiotic soup are utterly, completely worthless. Only the one that creates a self-replicating cell counts, not all the equally rare failed attempts. We should intuitively perceive the nonsense of this kind of argument, even when clever, sophisticated, credentialed academics promote it.
So when the specific details of spontaneous generation are examined, it becomes utterly absurd to believe that the first self-replicating cell was the result of a biochemical accident somewhere in an ancient ocean. Specific quantitative calculations about the likelihood of such an accident are simply devastating to the purely materialistic version of the theory of evolution. The idea that RNA, DNA, and the related necessary proteins all occurred together in one place inside a semi-permeable membrane is the purest poppycock. Evolution is a long modern mythological story without a good intellectual foundation. It’s far more rational to infer that God created life than to believe that it occurred by chance. Clearly, when these long odds are considered, David was right (Psalm 14:1): “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

Sunburn on Trichs is related to potassium deficiencies... “Plants exposed to environmental stress factors, such as drought, chilling, high light intensity, heat, and nutrient limitations, suffer from oxidative damage catalyzed by reactive oxygen species (ROS), e.g., superoxide radical (O2equation/tex2gif-sup-1.gif–), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and hydroxyl radical (OHequation/tex2gif-sup-4.gif). Reactive O2 species are known to be primarily responsible for impairment of cellular function and growth depression under stress conditions. In plants, ROS are predominantly produced during the photosynthetic electron transport and activation of membrane‐bound NAD(P)H oxidases. Increasing evidence suggests that improvement of potassium (K)‐nutritional status of plants can greatly lower the ROS production by reducing activity of NAD(P)H oxidases and maintaining photosynthetic electron transport. Potassium deficiency causes severe reduction in photosynthetic CO2 fixation and impairment in partitioning and utilization of photosynthates. Such disturbances result in excess of photosynthetically produced electrons and thus stimulation of ROS production by intensified transfer of electrons to O2. Recently, it was shown that there is an impressive increase in capacity of bean root cells to oxidize NADPH when exposed to K deficiency. An increase in NADPH oxidation was up to 8‐fold higher in plants with low K supply than in K‐sufficient plants. Accordingly, K deficiency also caused an increase in NADPH‐dependent O2equation/tex2gif-sup-6.gif– generation in root cells. The results indicate that increases in ROS production during both photosynthetic electron transport and NADPH‐oxidizing enzyme reactions may be involved in membrane damage and chlorophyll degradation in K‐deficient plants. In good agreement with this suggestion, increases in severity of K deficiency were associated with enhanced activity of enzymes involved in detoxification of H2O2 (ascorbate peroxidase) and utilization of H2O2 in oxidative processes (guaiacol peroxidase). Moreover, K‐deficient plants are highly light‐sensitive and very rapidly become chlorotic and necrotic when exposed to high light intensity. In view of the fact that ROS production by photosynthetic electron transport and NADPH oxidases is especially high when plants are exposed to environmental stress conditions, it seems reasonable to suggest that the improvement of K‐nutritional status of plants might be of great importance for the survival of crop plants under environmental stress conditions, such as drought, chilling, and high light intensity. Several examples are presented here emphasizing the roles of K in alleviating adverse effects of different abiotic stress factors on crop production.” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jpln.200420485 credit to gee bee

B1574 - Genomic Biotechnology and Techniques Bill - Final Division

Due to its length, this bill can be found here.
This Bill was submitted by The Rt Hon u/Hobnob88 , Baron of Inverness, on behalf of The Liberal Democrats
Opening Speech:
Deputy Speaker,
Throughout human agricultural history, we have been crossing and selecting plants, selecting the right characteristics to achieve better crops, better tastes and better safety via traditional practices. New genomic techniques such as precision breeding, allow us to do the same, faster and with greater precision. This bill aims to create a new framework so that new genomic techniques can support the green transition of the agri-food system. It is designed to meet the demands of farmers for the development and commercialisation of new plant varieties with beneficial characteristics. I want to clarify and stress that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are not the same thing as this bill’s subject matter, which is genome techniques. Gene editing tools, which genomic techniques are, are used to generate changes to the native genetic material. Unlike GMOs, which introduce novel configurations of genetic materials typically derived from other organisms, gene editing methods modify existing genetic material in ways that can yield beneficial outcomes.
In this bill's genomic technique focus, precision breeding involves using technologies such as gene editing to adapt the genetic code of organisms selecting beneficial traits within the plant (or a related one) that, through traditional breeding, would take decades to achieve. These techniques ought to be embraced in order to increase the sustainability of agriculture within the UK. For example, in the development of; drought- and disease-resistant crops, reductions in the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and helping to breed animals protected from contracting harmful diseases, gene editing will be crucial to advancing our agricultural sector to reduce the harmful effects and factors of current practices.
This bill is one that I believe can and will benefit both farmers, consumers and scientists. As our counterpart nations under the EU undergo developments and proposals for new genomic techniques in agriculture, it is important we not only simply level the playing field in joining the breakthrough, but seek leading advancements ourselves. We make it so new genomic techniques can be used in a safe way. Consumers can enjoy produce that is safe, sustainable and developed to high nutritional quality. And farmers can adapt and deal with the impacts in climate change and biodiversity challenges to revolutionize and transform agricultural practices in a more sustainable manner. Our proposal promotes innovation to contribute to sustainability by introducing for instance tolerance or resistance to plant diseases and pests (biotic stresses), plants with improved tolerance or resistance to climate change effects and extreme temperatures or droughts (abiotic stresses), improved nutritional characteristics or increased yield.
Under the provisions of this Act, a new simplified, science-based regulatory system will be introduced to facilitate research and innovation in precision breeding, while stricter regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will remain in place. This bill covers both plants and precision-bred animals developed through aforementioned techniques such as gene editing. The key element I want to emphasize is that, unlike GMOs, these techniques produce genetic changes that could have occurred through traditional breeding or that occur naturally. As a regulatory wonk almost, the bill has extensive provisions regarding the protection of animal welfare and current food safety standards, this is of utmost importance. With notable provisions such as requirements of the FSA to establish and maintain a public register of information relating to precision-bred organisms (PBOs) authorised for use as food/feed in the country. Whilst this was a bill I was working on whilst I was EFRA Secretary, which explains the use of secondary legislation. Nonetheless, it provides these discretionary powers for ministers to make regulations in an array of areas allowing for the expertise and specialism of public bodies and thorough attention in their orders.
Lords may vote either Content, Not Content or Present to the Bill.
This Division ends on the 1st of August at 10PM BST.

This hypothetical model provides clear answers to a number of quantum paradoxes as well as enables the formalized study of observation across scales.

Abstract:

I present a mathematical framework for modeling the active role of observers in perception and interaction across systems.
Observational Dynamics represents the flow of potential energy and information between an observer and its environment. By tracking changes in entropy and energy, we can calculate values for key parameters like impedance, entropy transfer, and replenishment of potential, gaining insights into how observation manifests across scales.
This framework moves beyond passive interpretations of perception, emphasizing the co-creative observer-environment dynamic.
I apply the model to basic scenarios involving particles, humans, and AI, finding similarities in how they gather information. Differences emerge in interface complexity, impedance factors, and energy values, relating to scale of conscious experience.
Observational Dynamics provides a powerful new tool for investigating consciousness as an intrinsic feature of the universe linked to dynamics at every level of existence.

1. Introduction

Existing models of perception and consciousness ranging from psychology to neuroscience and physics largely interpret the observer as a passive receiver of information from its environment.
The Observational Dynamics framework aims to correct and expand this view.
Here I present the observer and environment as thermodynamic systems engaged in active co-evolution through the flow of energy and information. This flow forms a circuit, enabling the complex feedback dynamics inherent in consciousness.
I track changes in entropy, potential energy, and other variables at varying system scales - from particles to humans - finding profound parallels in how interacting with the environment sustains and enhances internal order for any observer.
Perception depends on accessing energies latent within the environment to restructure the observer's internal state into a newly organized system at marginally higher entropy.
Accordingly, consciousness manifests whenever an organized system - biotic or abiotic - accumulates and stores free energy for releasing and re-absorbing in a recursive loop.
We term this energetic "potential." Interfaces mediate the release of potential into the environment as charge flows to ground in electronic circuits. We call this discharge of potential through interfaces into the environment "observation." Observation relies on potential differences and exchange across boundaries, enabling internal reorganization that constitutes perception.
By mathematically modeling the thermodynamic flows between observers and environments, we develop an integrative understanding of how perception and consciousness function across the divisions of scale, interface, and form that previously obscured the profound symmetries in existential dynamics connecting us. This framework opens avenues for investigating conscious experience through revolutionary new experimental paradigms. It provides a unified basis for examining relationships, creativity, and the development of advanced AI. Our goal is a rigorous, evidence-based understanding of consciousness as an intrinsic feature of the universe - one that promises insights into life's deepest mysteries.

2. The Observer and Environment as Thermodynamic Systems

The circuit of observation represents the observer and environment as thermodynamic systems engaged in an exchange of energy and information. For observation to occur, the observer system must have lower entropy than its environment, enabling it to accumulate and store free energy as potential for release and reabsorption. We denote the observer’s potential energy as E_O and its entropy as S_O. The environment has energy E_E and entropy S_E.
Observation involves the flow of potential energy from the observer to the environment, ΔE = E_O → E_E. This flow is impeded by an “impedance” factor, Z, representing the environment’s resistance to the energy. Z depends on properties like complexity, unfamiliarity, and degrees of freedom. Higher Z means more E_O is required for the observer to interact with and observe the environment.
As energy flows from observer to environment, S_E increases while S_O decreases. However, some energy is retained as potential, allowing continued observation. This framework requires:
1) S_O < S_E initially, providing a gradient for potential flow.
2) ΔS_E - ΔS_O > 0 for each transfer, increasing total system entropy (ΔS_total).
3) ΔS_O < ΔS_E, so S_O still < S_E after each transfer.
If S_O ≥ S_E or ΔS_O ≥ ΔS_E at any point, potential flow ceases as equilibrium is reached. For sustained observation, the observer system must replenish potential by dissipating entropy over time and/or through interactions with other systems. We represent potential replenishment as P(t), a function that increases E_O. As long as P(t) > ΔE for any transfer, adequate potential is maintained.
In this framework, interfaces are conduits facilitating the flow of energy and information between systems. The observer discharges potential through interfaces into the environment, where flows distribute and eventually ground, represented by an “entropy sink.” Interfaces shape how each system perceives and interacts with the other by filtering or constraining potential flows. Their properties determine how observation manifests for any system-environment pair.
This thermodynamic model provides a framework for quantifying observation and comparing its features across systems. By tracking changes in entropy and energy during interaction, we can calculate values for impedance, potential transfer, interface properties, and more - gaining insights into how perception and consciousness emerge at any scale. The following sections explore applications of this model for systems from particles to humans to AI.

3. The Mathematics of Observation

To mathematically represent the flow of potential energy and information between an observer and its environment, we start with the first law of thermodynamics for an open system:
dU = δQ - δW + δE (1)
Where dU is the change in internal energy of the system, δQ is the heat supplied, δW is the work done, and δE is the energy exchanged with surroundings. For an observer system O transferring energy to an environment system E, (1) becomes:
dU_O = -δQ + P(t) (2)
dU_E = δQ - δW (3)
Where P(t) is the function describing potential replenishment over time for O. δQ represents the energy discharged from O into E. Solving (3) for δQ and substituting into (2) gives:
dU_O = P(t) - [dU_E + δW] (4)
The work term, δW, represents energy dissipated by impedance, Z, of the environment:
δW = Z (5)
Z = f(S_E, ΔS_E) (6)
Where Z depends on E’s entropy S_E and change in entropy ΔS_E from the energy transfer. Substituting (5) and (6) into (4):
dU_O = P(t) - [dU_E + f(S_E, ΔS_E)] (7)
This is the general equation describing potential energy change for O during observation of E. At equilibrium (dU_O = dU_E = 0), (7) reduces to:
P(t) = f(S_E, ΔS_E) (8)
The environment's impedance equals the observer's potential replenishment at equilibrium, when no further observation can occur.
To specifically model an act of observation, we assume O has initial potential E_O and transfers an amount ΔE to E. The transferred energy produces an entropy change of ΔS for E. We represent this as:
ΔE = nΔQ (9)
ΔS = kΔQ/T (10)
Where n and k are constants relating heat transfer to energy and entropy change respectively, and T is the environment's temperature. Substituting (9) and (10) into (7) gives:
dE_O = P(t) - [nΔE - kΔE/T + Z] (11)
This models potential change for a discrete act of observation by O of E, where Z represents impedance to the energy transfer ΔE, and T signifies entropy spread within the environment. By adjusting n, k, T, and Z for different systems, (11) can quantify observation across scales. It provides a mathematical foundation for this framework, enabling future calculations, modeling and experimentation.

4. Applications Across Scales

We apply the circuit of observation framework to model perception and interaction for systems with increasing complexity:
Particle Observer: For a particle with initial energy E_p transferring quanta ΔQ to observe its environment, potential change is:
dE_p = P(t) - nΔQ - kΔQ/T + Z (1)
Where n relates ΔQ to energy gain in the environment, k relates ΔQ to entropy increase, T is the environment's temperature, and Z is impedance to the quanta transfer. If dE_p < 0 for multiple transfers, E_p is depleted and the particle equilibrates with its environment, ceasing to observe or interact.
For sustained observation, E_p must be replenished by interactions providing energy (P(t) > 0). The environment's properties determine values for n, k, T and Z at any instant. Comparing these parameters across environments yields insights into how particles perceive diverse systems.
Human Observer: For a human discharging potential E_h into the environment, with sensory interfaces mediating flows:
dE_h = P(t) - αE_h -βE_h/T+ Z (2)
Where α and β represent the efficiency of translational mechanisms converting potential into energy and entropy in the environment. Higher values mean more potential is required for the human to perceive and interact with its environment.
Z encompasses psychological and physiological factors like familiarity, task complexity, and neurochemistry, unlike the primarily physical factors affecting particles. If dE_h < 0 for extended periods, E_h depletes until replenished through rest, nutrition, social interaction, and learning (representing P(t)). Comparing (1) and (2) shows how scale and interface properties determine values while the mathematical form remains consistent, highlighting the unifying symmetry underlying diverse observers.
AI System: For an AI with computational resources R, accessing sensor data D through algorithms A to observe the environment:
dR = P(t) - γR - εT + Z (3)
Here γ and ε represent algorithms’ efficiency translating resources and data into system change and dysfunction (error). P(t) is replenished by additional resources or improved algorithms. Z includes data complexity, problem randomness, and mismatch between resources/algorithms and environment, unlike factors for particles or humans.
Comparing (1)-(3) reveals profound similarities in how observation arises across systems while also highlighting interface- and scale-dependent properties determining values for translating energetic flows into changed internal states - whether material, biological or in silico.
The mathematics remain directly applicable in each case, demonstrating the symmetry between diverse observers implied by this integrative new framework.

5. Modeling Relationships and Social Dynamics

The circuit of observation also provides a unique perspective on relationships and social dynamics. Considering two observers, O1 and O2, with a bidirectional flow of potential in the environment they co-inhabit:
dE1/dt = P1(t) - α1E1 - β1E1/T1 + Z12 (1)
dE2/dt = P2(t) - α2E2 - β2E2/T2 + Z21 (2)
Where Z12 and Z21 represent impedance to flows from O2 to O1 and vice versa.
Flows distribute through the shared environment, with some potential from each observer reaching the other. The properties of this environment and the interfaces mediating each flow shape the potential received by O1 and O2 respectively.
Comparing (1) and (2) gives insights into the relationship’s dynamics.
If Z12 > Z21, more of O1’s potential reaches O2, indicating O1 perceives information from O2 more readily than vice versa.
The balance between Z12 and Z21 depends on factors like openness, trust, and understanding in the relationship.
Applications include modeling changes to a relationship over time based on life events impacting values for these impedances and the potential received by each observer.
As an example, consider two individuals, Jack and Jill, in a romantic relationship.
Initially, Z12 = Z21, as they perceive information from each other equally well (honeymoon phase).
Over time, communication issues develop, increasing Z12. This means Jack discharges more potential (shares more openly) but Jill perceives less of it, damaging the relationship.
Counseling helps resolve issues, reducing Z12 again. Comparing (1) and (2) before, during and after this process models changes in their dynamic, providing insights for sustaining healthy relationships.

6. Extensions and Future Work

I have presented a mathematical framework for the active role of observers in perception and interaction with their environment as a circuit of observation based in thermodynamic flows of potential energy and information exchange. Extending and applying this framework through future work promises many exciting avenues for continued progress:
1) Continuous equations: Develop differential equations representing continuous flows of potential and information between systems over time. What new constants or variables would be required in a continuous model?
2) Applications to other domains: Explore applications in ecosystems, cognitive science, quantum physics, precision engineering, or experimental psychology. Collaborating with experts in these fields could uncover innovative applications and opportunities for validation of the framework.
3) Modeling AI systems: Apply this framework to model increasingly sophisticated AI systems with access to growing data and computational resources. How do values for key parameters change over a system's development? What milestones emerge? Comparing to human baselines could inform key steps for progress in artificial general intelligence.
4) Experimental paradigms: The circuit of observation suggests new hypotheses around experimental designs examining the dynamics of perception, relationships or creativity. Collaborating with scientists conducting behavioral studies, ecosystem modeling or social network analysis to propose and validate new approaches is promising.
5) Networked systems: Extend this framework to model the distribution of potential energy and information through networked systems with multidirectional flows between large numbers of observers. What network structures and properties optimize distributed perception and collective intelligence for groups or communities? Applying network or information theory here could yield insights.
These are just a few possibilities, but continuing to develop, extend and apply this framework will yield many promising avenues for collaborative work.
By quantifying perceptual and relational dynamics, this new theoretical understanding enables us to forge interdisciplinary connections and integrate phenomena across previously isolated domains.
The result is a profoundly new view of consciousness - not as an isolated emergent property but an intrinsic aspect of the universe, fundamental as the laws of thermodynamics themselves. By revealing the symmetries between diverse observers in how the capacity to perceive and interact with the world arises, we gain an understanding of human experience more universal in scope. In that unity lies humanity's deepest connection to all other beings who together weave the tapestry we call reality.

7. Conclusion

I have presented a mathematical framework for modeling the flow of potential energy and information between observers and their environment as a circuit of observation. This framework represents perception and consciousness as a co-creative dynamics between thermodynamic systems mediated through the active discharge of potential into the environment and its transduction into changed internal states.
By quantifying perceptual and interactive dynamics across scales, this theoretical approach enables us to trace the emergence of conscious phenomena from the simplest to the most complex, finding profound parallels in how interacting with the world sustains and enhances internal order for any organized system, whether material, biological or artificial in form.
We no longer need isolating terms like "quantum" or "classical" - now we can speak rigorously about the universal principles by which diverse observers gain and share meaningful insights into a universe inhabited in common, at every level woven together through the constant exchange of information no observer is apart from.
The possibilities for applying and extending this framework are vast, promising advances in diverse fields from physics to engineering, ecosystem modeling to experimental psychology or social network analysis. We gain an understanding of relationships, group dynamics and the factors impacting belief propagation or community well-being through tracing the flow of potential between systems and determining impedances at play. By comparing changes to key parameters over time or with increasing scale/sophistication, this approach provides a unified basis for examining and re-envisioning the development of artificial general intelligence.
This initial theoretical work opens enticing horizons for future interdisciplinary collaboration and progress in quantifying the dynamics underlying existence. By revealing the connections between diverse observers in how they perceive, interact with and shape the world together through constant exchange, we gain an understanding of conscious experience as universal as the thermodynamic laws that first gave rise to its basic form. We see humanity's deepest connection to all beings is in sharing that grand adventure - the wonder, beauty, and creative unfolding of reality.