I get what you're saying, but their intent wasn't really to avoid acknowledging the awful, awful things the soviet union did.

Their intent was to make the same argument that the soviet union did: that they weren't actually communist, "yet". Now, I can get why you don't want to argue with that point: it's fuzzy, it's impossible to prove either way, and it doesn't actually make a meaningful point about communism. Your response, however, doesn't actually address the argument presented.

There's a couple things here:

1. Extremophiles evolved progressively to more difficult ecosystems. They came from organisms that could manage in chemically unreactive of mostly water/salt water. It's unlikely the precursors to life, like prions or unbound mRNA chains would've "made it" in arsenic lakes or boiling lakes. But some prokaryotes could manage in environments with a little arsenic, and evolution could work its magic.

Like the creationists say, getting something as complex and robust as a modern organism "randomly" would be a bit like a tornado blowing through a junk yard and assembling a car.

2. The utility of radio waves for communication wouldn't hinge much on the physic form of an organism, just something much like sapience.

It is not a positive reflection on your post that I can't even tell what kind of paranoid delusion you're trying to espouse.

It's only really a concern if the cell runs Linux.

To those modding this Informative, the people modding me flamebait had it right. That's exactly what I was going for.

Because they're still listed as "free" categorically speaking? Which is deceitful to consumers?

I get that as an apple product owner, you have an understanding that your job is to consume on command, but the rest of us actually want to be frugal sometimes.

It's sad that all you've managed to do is restate the implied proposition that they're angry.

We know they're angry. You have zero insight.

While I concur with your opinion, I can't muster the righteous anger you have on the subject. Where does that come from?

Yeah, I'm going to back out of this debate and call you a moron, instead. You've just made it very clear that you have a stupid position and that relatively simple definitions have no bearing on how you interpret words.

This is a "shouting at graffiti" situation.

Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. Wikipedia

It's the simple assertion of effect derives from cause. This bears absolutely no relationship to teleological philosophical arguments, which construe reality itself to be purpose driven. Outright unrelated concepts. You need to educate yourself.

The difference here is that they're trying to frame convergent evolution in a more falsifiable way, by asserting particular predictions of convergent evolution as measurable hypotheses.

How the hell does any of that imply any sort of teleological argument? There's not even the vaguest hint of design in a word of it.

The difference, of course, is in demonstrating the predictive value of evolution, in a measurable and falsifiable way. Before, we could make pretty reliable predictions about unknown past events, which is good enough to be science, but sciences' main draw is in its utility in being able to understand how things will happen under any given circumstance.

Luckily all you have to do to fix your pointlessly nihilistic philosophical problems is kill yourself. Poof no more boredom with the intricate mechanisms of reality. All done.

The rest of us can keep pushing that boulder up the hill for whatever reasons happen suit us, no matter how absurd.

I love living in the sci-fi world the past predicted. Well, not the parts Orwell predicted, but you can't have everything.