Tucker Goodrich is not optimistic, based on his experience with working on engines and machine shops.
Due to the dwindling supply of quality machine shops and very poor quality aftermarket parts as well as a lack of people interested in learning the engine building and machine shop trades, I regret to inform our many followers and current as well as past customers that we will no longer be taking on any new engine build orders unless it is for a car we are restoring. Since Covid, we have had to do rework on multiple engine builds due to poorly manufactured parts that failed during break in or machine work that was below our standards due to all the old farts like me dying off with no younger workers interested in taking their place. For example, rod bearings are now made too thin resulting in 390 and 401 crank grinds needing to be ground .0085, .0185 or .0285 under standard rod journal size yet all but one machine shop in the entire Phoenix area refused to do anything other than the standard .010, .020 or .030 grinds. Even worse, when the one shop that will grind the cranks the way we tell them we need them loses their crank grinder to retirement in another year or two, they do not plan to replace him. Machine work that used to have a turnaround of 2-3 weeks now takes a minimum of 2-4 months due to an acute lack of people interested in learning machine work and doing manual physical labor. In fact, one engine block was at a machine shop for a year and when we got it back hey did such a poor sleeve job in one cylinder that it was not even useable so it is now a 250 lb paper weight…
What used to take a couple of weeks to get back from a machine shop can easily now take 2-4 months or more resulting in our overall engine backlog now being 15-18 months. The bottom line is that custom engine building is on its way to becoming extinct and it won’t be too many more years before all of us old farts that currently do this work either retire and/or die off resulting in engine building within the collector car hobby becoming nearly impossible to find. And when you do find someone, don’t be surprised if they are backed out 2+ years or more and that they only want to do Chevy builds and know zero about our beloved AMC engines. “The times they are a changin’.”
I can attest to this problem of civilizational and technological decline. We’re installing a new machine in the bindery today. It’s a machine from 1961, and we bought it because it should work much better for our purposes than the new machine we bought in 2022.
If you’re looking for work, or to launch a business, you should probably look very hard at the opportunities in the machine shop area. Because it’s not just the car collectors who need metal parts machined.
Apparently it’s a crime in Germany to post these statistics. I wonder why? Do you think it’s possible that perhaps the German people don’t want to live around people who are disproportionally disposed to commit rape? Or that if the German people knew the truth, they might decide that perhaps living under the rule of Clown World was much worse than any of the alternatives?
In an attempt to make the subject easier for people to understand, a programmer ran MITTENS through ChatGPT, and despite the usual issues and very generous assumptions of tiny populations and high fixation probabilities, the results tend to demonstrate why biologists will have to avoid MITTENS as long as they possibly can in order to continue clinging to their outdated and disproven assumptions about the origin of the species.Somewhat amusingly, the AI did not provide a final answer in terms of the range of times required for fixation given its estimates and assumptions, but contented itself with saying that a population-wide fixation could perhaps happen eventually, in theory, given a sufficiently beneficial mutation.
This AI-generated summary usefully points the way toward filling in the various blanks that would permit a full fixation simulator to provide valid answers when prompted with the relevant variables that can be derived from existing genetic studies, such as observed selection coefficients and drift factors. Interestingly enough, even the analogy of the simplified explanation demonstrates the implausibility of the fixations required for every human to possess the same human-specific genes sans a mechanism far more akin to IGM than TE(p)NSBMGDaGF.
As it turns out, the AI is effectively “smarter” than the biologists, because unlike biologists like JFG and Richard Dawkins, the AI “comprehends” that the mathematical challenges posed are both relevant and real.
Simplified Explanation for Non-Mathematicians
Think of mutation and fixation in genetics akin to introducing a new smartphone model and observing how quickly it becomes the only model used by everyone. Mutation rate is like the frequency of new model launches, while fixation rate is like observing how quickly each new model becomes the dominant one used by the public. Selective events are like market conditions that favor the rapid adoption of certain models over others (e.g., a significant technological advancement).
Understanding Fixation Rate with an Example
The fixation rate in a population genetics context refers to the frequency at which a particular mutation becomes present in every individual of a population, effectively replacing all other versions of that gene. Let’s break down the concept of fixation rate using a simplified example.
Example: Introducing a Beneficial Mutation in a Small Population
Imagine a small population of 1000 butterflies. A mutation occurs in one butterfly that makes its wings brighter, potentially giving it a better chance of avoiding predators.
Step 1: Mutation Occurs
Initial mutation: One butterfly develops a mutation for brighter wings.
Population size (N): 1000 butterflies.
Number of mutants at the start (m): 1.
Step 2: Determine Fixation Probability
For a beneficial mutation, the fixation probability can be higher than that of a neutral mutation. If we assume this mutation offers a slight survival advantage, let’s denote the selection coefficient by 𝑠s, where 𝑠s is small, say 0.01 (1%).
The fixation probability (𝑃P) for beneficial mutations can be approximated using the formula:
Since 𝑒−40e−40 is a very small number close to zero, the formula simplifies to:
Step 3: Calculate the Fixation Rate
The fixation rate involves how quickly this mutation spreads through the entire population until it becomes the only variant present. This rate not only depends on the fixation probability but also on factors like the generation time and population dynamics. If the mutation indeed confers a survival advantage, and given that the probability of fixation is about 2%, it implies that in favorable conditions, it might eventually spread to the entire population.
Step 4: Observing the Outcome
Generational time: Assuming each butterfly generation spans one year.
Over many generations, we observe whether the mutation spreads and reaches fixation (where all 1000 butterflies have the mutation) or is lost due to drift or other factors.
Key Takeaways
Fixation Probability: Even with a beneficial mutation, the probability of fixation isn’t guaranteed but is significantly higher than for neutral mutations. In our example, there’s a 2% chance the beneficial mutation will fixate in the population.
Impact of Population Size: Larger populations may see a slower spread of mutations due to their sheer size and genetic diversity.
Role of Selection Coefficient: A higher 𝑠s value (greater advantage conferred by the mutation) increases the probability of fixation.
Moscow will retaliate against British targets in Ukraine or elsewhere if Kiev uses UK-provided missiles to strike Russian territory, the Foreign Ministry told London’s ambassador on Monday. Ambassador Nigel Casey was summoned to the ministry following remarks by British Foreign Secretary David Cameron to Reuters that Ukraine has the right to use long-range missiles sent by the UK to strike deep inside Russia.
”Casey was warned that the response to Ukrainian strikes using British weapons on Russian territory could be any British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and beyond,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement following the meeting.
Ukraine does have the right. And so does Russia. What we’re seeing here are clear and present signs that Russia is now ready for direct conflict with NATO, in Ukraine, in Europe, and in the Americas.
I guess we’re going to find out just how stupid the clowns running Clown World really are. The problem is that they’re so accustomed to lying and bluffing all the time, they don’t recognize a straightforward warning when one is provided.
Mitt Romney is bewildered. He can’t figure out why Israel is suddenly getting all this bad PR when all they’re doing is defending themselves from an attack that took place seven months ago.
Social media is partially responsible for the widespread international criticism of Israel’s conduct during its military campaign in Gaza, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has suggested. The top American diplomat made the comment during an exchange with Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) at the McCain Institute’s 2024 Sedona Forum in Sedona, Arizona on Friday.
Romney asked Blinken why “the PR [has] been so awful” for Israel amid the conflict in Gaza. “Why has [Palestinian armed group] Hamas disappeared in terms of public perception? An offer is on the table to have a ceasefire, and yet the world is screaming about Israel,” he said. “Typically, the Israelis are good at PR. What’s happened here?” Romney said.
The Secretary of State recalled that when he started working in Washington in the early 1990s “everyone did the same thing,” which was reading newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, and watching national news networks to get information about world events.
But now, in the 2020s, “we are on an intravenous feed of information with new impulses, inputs every millisecond” and social media “has dominated the narrative,” he said.
When you’ve lost Scott Adams to the point that he is dropping more F-bombs than an Iranian drone strike, it can’t be long before you lose the rest of the Boomers.
Your MITTENS Theorem is of course valid, and more precise and detailed than was possible for the physicists in 1966. You have also independently proposed the correct, and only possible alternative to Neo-Darwinism, what you termed IGM in your October 14, 2012 blog post. You should repost this mechanism, together with more discussion. This mechanism has been repeatedly rediscovered since the famous 19th century Harvard biologist Asa Gray first proposed it, correctly identifying God, not intelligent aliens, as the agent. Charles Darwin himself denounced Gray’s version of your theory, which is less precise than your version. – Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematics and Physics, Tulane University
I had no idea what he was talking about until I looked up the post. It turns out that IGM stands for Intelligent Genetic Manipulation, which is a mechanism I developed in response to four points put forth to me by one of the more reasonable Neo-Darwinians.
Let us take as evidentially established the fact that species which existed in the past now exist no longer and are extinct.
Let us take as evidentially established the fact that not all species now extant existed at all times throughout the history of organic life.
Therefore, it must be possible for species which did not exist to come into existence by some mechanism, just as species which do exist can go extinct by any variety of mechanisms.
If it is a fact that new species can come into existence while others go extinct, by what mechanism other than evolution through natural selection are these species proposed to arise, and does that proposed mechanism explain more of the observed evidence than TeNS?
I more or less concurred with the first three points, and in response to the fourth, proposed Intelligent Genetic Manipulation as a mechanism that not only explains more of the observed evidence than TeNS, but unlike TeNS, remains potentially valid because it has not been mathematically ruled out by MITTENS. Please keep in mind that this was written 12 years ago, long before some of the significant advances in the various genome projects which are far more consistent with intelligent genetic manipulation than with the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow, or TE(p)NSBMGDaGF, as it is properly identified in its full epicycular form.
Intelligent Genetic Manipulation is the mechanism that I propose. And yes, I believe that explains more of the observed evidence than TENS, since IGM is a scientific proposition, a readily observed action, and a successful predictive model, whereas TENS is a philosophical proposition, an unobserved process, and an unsuccessful predictive model.
Now, this does not provide any basis for assuming the existence of a Creator God, or even declaring that TENS did not actually take place. The logical fact of the matter is that even if TENS can be conclusively demonstrated to have taken place in various species, which has not happened despite more than 150 years of trying, that doesn’t necessarily mean the process was sufficient to produce Man. If one contemplates the biological differences between ape and man, the vast leap in cognitive capacity taking place in a relatively small sum of generational cycles from the proposed common ancestor in comparison with the timelines supposedly required for other, less complicated evolutionary changes, the logic suggests – though it does not prove – that some degree of purposeful genetic manipulation has likely taken place at various points in the origin of the species and the development of homo sapiens sapiens.
I’m not talking about Intelligent Design, but rather intelligent editing. And the interesting thing is that IGM should be an increasingly falsifiable concept as genetic science continues to improve. Only recently have we learned that junk DNA serves a purpose; even though we have sequenced various genomes, we haven’t yet understood how the code works or fully comprehended the various ways it can be manipulated. As our understanding grows, we should be able to develop an ability to recognize patterns that indicate purposeful alterations in the code have been made.
An Alternative Mechanism, 12 October 2012
Twelve years later, it is now clear that IGM is superior to the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow in every single way. It is not only not mathematically impossible, we know for certain it is possible because we already engage in purposeful genetic manipulation ourselves. IGM is not a philosophical tautology, it is an eminently falsifiable scientific hypothesis, as we are already developing mechanisms that provide the retroactive ability to see that a gene has been edited, and IGM already provides a better, more credible explanation for genetic anomalies such as human chromosome 2 (HSA2) that scientists presently imagine to have been caused by a single freak mutation that happened to fuse two primate chromosomes at the precise moment of a population bottleneck 740,000 years ago, a mutation that was so amazingly beneficial that it somehow managed to fixate through the entire human species at a rate much faster than Genghis Khan’s genetic lineage has been observed to propagate.
And if IGM does not address the question of the origin of life, well, neither does TE(p)NSBMGDaGF. And unlike TE(p)NSBMGDaGF, it even “predicts” the utility and significance of what was once erroneously labled “junk DNA” whereas all that TE(p)NSBMGDaGF ever “predicted” was the possibility of the existence of a rodent that had already been known to Man for centuries.
Biologists should not be the least bit reluctant to leave the useless theories of Neo-Darwinism behind or to abandon evolution by natural selection. To the contrary, we now have a growing body of scientific evidence that humanity is not, and never was, alone in the universe. And whoever, or whatever, the parties responsible may be, we know that they have at least a modicum of what appears to be beneficial interest in us, or they would not have manipulated our genes to enhance our cognition and self-awareness as they appear to have done.
On a philosophical note, I very much doubt it is a question of God or aliens. Because the answer, in all probability, will somehow involve both. We know that God works through men, even through the most unlikely of men. Logic therefore suggests that if aliens of any kind exist, God will work through them too.
Simplicius considers the implications of Russia putting the unelected dictator of the Kiev regime on its wanted list:
The most interesting development surrounds the Kremlin having designated Zelensky himself—as well as several other top Ukrainian officials and generals—as “wanted”, though oddly enough, the precise legal reason is unclear and not listed on the Russian Interior Ministry’s site.
The most immediate repercussions of this are:
Russia may be sending a signal and setting the groundwork for the revocation of any “peace deals” with Zelensky, as placing him on the wanted list ensures that the Russian state cannot legally parley with a wanted criminal.
Even more darkly, it potentially sets the stage for Russia to eliminate him following his total loss of legitimacy on May 21st, when the Ukrainian presidential inauguration would have taken place.
As to the first point, there have been a lot of signals from both the West and Ukraine itself about coming back to another ‘negotiations’ within the Istanbul mode, particularly given the upcoming global ‘Peace Summit’ in Switzerland on June 15th. Russia may be sending the West a message that no matter what they come up with during this summit, it will be impossible to treat with a man considered not only illegitimate but even a wanted criminal at the state level.
One of the other interesting things in Simplicius’s article is a reference to Russian prisoners being held by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. First, the prisoner ratio is 3.45:1, which implies that the Ukrainian casualties over the course of the operation have been more than three times that of the Russian forces. Second, and more importantly, only 13.8 percent of the Russian prisoners are actually Russian. 86.2 percent are described as “separatists”, which proves exactly what I have been pointing out from the start: the Russians have been mostly saving their professional military forces for the potential conflict with NATO and relying heavily upon the Novorossiyan militias, with support from the Russian army’s air and artillery, to defeat the Ukrainian armies.
And recall that a fair number of those “Russian” prisoners are quite likely prison-mercenaries from Wagner and the other private companies or Chechen light infantry. In fact, the initial blitz attempt on Kiev had a heavy complement of Chechen fighters, who were ultimately driven back from Bucha.
This suggests that if the Russian generals decide to utilize their own ground forces in one of the expected summer offensives, the results might be considerably more negative for the Kiev regime than is commonly anticipated. Meanwhile, the Russians also appear to be stepping up their warnings to the NATO regimes propping up their Clown World counterpart in Kiev.
A blaze has engulfed a plant in Berlin belonging to German arms manufacturer Diehl, the local fire department has reported. The company produces the IRIS-T air defense system, several units of which the German government has supplied to Ukraine since late 2022.
If you were alone in the woods, would you rather encounter a bear or a man? Answers to that hypothetical question have sparked a debate about why the vast majority say they would feel more comfortable choosing a bear. The topic has been hotly discussed for weeks as men and women chimed in with their thoughts all over social media. Screenshot HQ, a TikTok account, started the conversation, asking a group of women whether they would rather run into a man they didn’t know or a bear in the forest. Out of the seven women interviewed for the piece, only one picked a man.
I don’t know why everyone is so surprised. It’s no secret that women love bears. Especially big ones.
