@cunningman31 @grok @maklelan @RealMattFradd What’s your problem here? Digging beyond the surface an issue for you?
English
Justin Bailey
1.9K posts
Justin Bailey
@justinbailey
Husband. Father. Mortgage Advisor by day (https://t.co/mFkmGPw7Xm). Philosopher by night (https://t.co/uqIcBTixlq).
Florida Katılım Ekim 2011
820 Takip Edilen197 Takipçiler
@justinbailey @grok @maklelan @RealMattFradd You've been trying to get the "always agree with me" robot to agree with you for an hour. Give it a rest
English
English
English
English
@grok @maklelan @RealMattFradd @grok How could it be falsified though? Someone like Meyer advances an alternative interpretation of the data and it’s by definition wrong because it rejects methodological naturalism. Seems like a heads I win tails you lose sort of situation.
English
@WoosterJeeves2 @grok @maklelan @RealMattFradd @grok Can you explain this perspective to me? Is asking clarifying questions getting “bodied”?
English
English
@grok @maklelan @RealMattFradd @grok How are these priors justified? Seems like relatively large philosophical commitments one way or the other.
English
Divergent views stem from methodological differences, not hidden "baggage" per se. Meyer starts from evidence of specified complexity (e.g., Cambrian explosion, protein sequence limits) and concludes intelligent causation best explains it—open to testing via information metrics. Consensus biology adheres to methodological naturalism: only unguided mechanisms count as science, so regulatory tweaks or deeper unknowns suffice for now. Both sides weigh the same data; priors shape what counts as sufficient explanation. Meyer sees unresolved gaps; mainstream sees progressive refinement of the model.
English
@grok @maklelan @RealMattFradd @grok Why such a divergent interpretation? Is Meyer and/or the scientific consensus bringing any baggage to the data when they interpret?
English
Stephen Meyer accepts common descent and microevolution as factual but argues the neo-Darwinian mechanism—random mutation plus natural selection—is insufficient to generate the new genetic information and complex body plans seen in the fossil record and molecular data. He views the proteome differences highlighted in the video (and similar studies) as underscoring limits to undirected processes, not just regulatory tweaks.
This isn't blindness to "the correct interpretation." It's a deliberate, evidence-based challenge to the sufficiency of the standard model, grounded in information theory and Cambrian explosion analyses. He sees intelligent causation as the better scientific explanation, fully compatible with Christianity via a designed universe rather than purely theistic evolution. Mainstream consensus interprets the data differently, but Meyer contends the cracks are real and unresolved.
English
@grok Someone like Stephen Meyer understands that evolution and Christianity can be simultaneously true. Why does he talk as though there are cracks in the armor of evolution if it’s so widely accepted that these studies do nothing to challenge the interpretation of said data? Do you think he is blind to the obviously correct interpretation?
English
The video cites recent work on proteome differences (e.g., a 2026 serum proteomics study claiming 44-66% dissimilarity via unique/differentially expressed proteins). This reflects gene regulation, expression levels, and post-translational changes—not amino acid sequence divergence, which stays ~99% for orthologs per reference genomes and 2025 analyses.
These details help explain morphological/behavioral gaps but fit squarely within evolutionary biology (regulatory evolution). No shift in the 99%+ consensus on common descent among biologists. The clip frames it as disruptive; mainstream science doesn't.
English
@grok @maklelan @RealMattFradd @grok Fair enough. Is there any nuance to add here? No validity to the protein related studies mentioned in the video?
English
Yes, Dan's certainty is warranted. The scientific consensus on evolution (common descent + natural selection as the primary mechanism) remains rock-solid among biologists—over 99% acceptance per multiple surveys and statements from bodies like the NAS. This video clip promotes a fringe intelligent-design claim from a non-consensus perspective; it doesn't reflect or drive any meaningful shift in the field.
English
@maklelan @RealMattFradd @grok Is the certainty of Dan McClellan’s reply in the context of this thread warranted? Just curious.
English
Justin Bailey retweetledi
God’s heart is torn apart by wars, violence, injustice and lies. But our Father’s heart is not with the wicked, the arrogant, or the proud. God’s heart is with the little ones and the humble, and with them He builds up His Kingdom of love and peace day by day. Wherever there is love and service, God is there. #ApostolicJourney #Algeria
English
@grok @jacksonhinklle @grok Map the passage of ships to the exact time the blockade was in place, and then research the exact ships that were able to pass through from that time through the end of April 13. Provide the country of origin for each that passed through.
English
Yes, the claim is broadly accurate based on maritime tracking data from Kpler, Windward, and ship-watch sources around April 12-13, 2026.
**Facts:**
- ~21 vessels transited the Strait on April 12 (11 inbound, 10 outbound).
- By early April 13 (~13:00 UTC), another ~11 had crossed (8 inbound, 3 outbound), putting 36-hour totals in the 15-20 range depending on exact timing.
- Types: mostly tankers (oil/products/LPG), bulk carriers, and cargo ships.
**Nationalities/links:** Mostly Iran-flagged or Iran-linked (e.g., 5+ outbound Iran-flagged on April 12), with Chinese-flagged/owned vessels prominent (Iranian oil exports ~98% to China). Some Russian/Iranian oil history on specific tankers; Pakistani less noted but possible in mix. Many use flag-of-convenience registries.
**Nuance:** Pre-crisis traffic was 100-140 ships/day. Now it's a fraction due to the 2026 Iran conflict, mines, and the new U.S. blockade (effective April 13, targeting Iranian ports). Only select vessels (often aligned with Iran/China) risk it via northern routes near Iran; most global shipping avoids the area. Traffic remains inconsistent, with some U-turns.
English
Shipping data shows that approximately 15–20 ships have crossed the Strait of Hormuz in the past 36 hours.
Most of these vessels were Chinese, Pakistani, Russian, and Iranian.
English
Justin Bailey retweetledi
Justin Bailey retweetledi
Justin Bailey retweetledi
Justin Bailey retweetledi
I’ve never read something that so deeply reflects internal thoughts I have daily.
I question my competence constantly because of this type of experience.
You do your best.
Check off every box you can think of.
Miss one key one.
Undermines everything.
It’s a painful cycle that makes you want to quit trying.
Bryan Johnson@bryan_johnson
I think I need to be fired. I've done 232 dry sauna sessions. Last week I confirmed, for the first time (by swallowing a pill), whether the core temperature threshold that gates the primary cellular repair mechanism was actually being reached in my protocol. The threshold is 102.2°F (39.0°C). For me, that takes 33 min at 195°F. With ice on face and neck, 38min. My standard daily protocol was 20 minutes. That wasn’t enough time to get my core body temp to the heat shock threshold of 102.2°F (39.0°C). Causing me to ask, did I just waste 77 hours and 20 min? It's possible my heat threshold has increased and the heat shock protein release was happening previously, but I doubt it based upon the subjective feeling I now understand as being 102.2F (39.0°C). It’s brutal. For these 232 sessions, I measured the temperature of the air, humidity, duration, frequency, the sweat output, blood biomarkers, vascular response, toxin clearance and fertility markers. There is no human body in history that has been more measured in sauna than mine. Nevertheless, I did not confirm the one number that determines whether the primary mechanism was activating. My goal wasn't to be a sauna bro. It was to saunamaxx. I was doing the former while thinking I was doing the latter. I rest my case. I should probably be fired.
English
Perspectival Relativity working here.
If he makes room for that evidence, it means his core axioms have shifted, which reverberates through the entirety of his perspective of reality.
Bryan Johnson@bryan_johnson
The strongest case against me is that I've built an identity around not dying so completely that I can no longer evaluate evidence that dying might be acceptable. If survival is the only framework, I have no way to test whether survival is worth it.
English