If I was a creationist (I'm definitely not) this is definitely what I would cite as the strongest evidence of a creator. It truly boggles the mind that random interactions of molecules can lead to something like a cell which is way more than the sum of its parts - and it's driven by the same forces that pull the rock from your hand to the floor. Going into my biology education I thought the cell was just a house to protect fragile DNA. But the cell is really what you are... The DNA contains instructions to build the first cell of your life but after that the DNA is not involved in cellular division. It's just chemistry and ultimately physics. Is that right? It makes me think we have no free will and everything is just what happens when you have a big Bang and let billions of years happen.

I think you're confusing multiple different concepts here. I'll let someone more versed in information theory weigh in on the black hole discussion, but ashes themselves are just the non-burnable parts of whatever you set on fire.

In a log, for example, the vast majority of the mass is water (which can evaporate into the air) and organic compounds that will be turned into carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide (this is the chemical reaction you are doing when you see fire). After you completely, 100% turn the organic compounds into gasses, you are left with ashes, which are largely the micronutrients that were stored in the plant and used to keep it healthy. Calcium, potassium, magnesium, iron.

[removed]

[removed]

That's like asking how does the carburetor know how much air and gas to admit and how to mix them or how a loom knows what threads go where. The carburetor and loom do what they do because that's what that machine does when it's running. Because the physics will be followed, they will not make smoothies and they will not sort coins. Inside the cell are little machines that evolved to do exactly what they do because of chemistry (which is really just physics) and it literally took millions of years and countless generations for them to evolve to this astounding level of complexity. The spindle apparatus is no more intelligent than an engine cam or a loom shuttle but it does what it does when it has the proper inputs, a whole lot of helper machines around it and a source of power.

The actual names of the little machines that guide the spindles are Aurora Kinase A and B and a couple other proteins. They are like jigsaw puzzle pieces that only fit in the specific places that they're supposed to fit.

Watch this video for a general overview of cellular machinery and please excuse the anthropomorphism, it's irresistible when you see some of these little buggers work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp6qRNNGPj4

Maybe because Norwegians have traditionally been a sea oriented culture, could that mean they were exposed to other languages more?

What about Norwegian and Icelandic though? Norway has very isolated, mountainous pockets like Iceland, and yet Norwegian is at a similar level of complexity as the other continental languages while Icelandic remained more conservative in that respect.

[removed]

Numerous variables, such as regional topography, long-range atmospheric circulation patterns, and the movement of weather systems, can have an impact on short-term weather patterns. Since there are so many factors that might change the weather from day to day or week to week, it is typically challenging to accurately predict short-term weather patterns. Having said that, it is possible that an unusually prolonged spell of rain in one place may have been caused by a bigger weather pattern that is affecting the area. For instance, the existence of a low-pressure system that is pushing humid air into the area may be the cause of a location experiencing a prolonged stretch of wet weather. In this instance, it's likely that the rainy weather will prevail for the duration of the month, yet it's also possible that it will turn drier.

Since there are so many factors that might change the weather from day to day or week to week, it is typically challenging to accurately predict short-term weather patterns. In general, for the most precise and current information on the weather in a certain location, it is better to rely on weather forecasts from trustworthy sources, such as the National Weather Service.

[removed]

Not OP, but the general opinion in linguistics is I think fairly well reflected by this Language Log post from a good decade ago, in response to a paper about high altitudes correlating with ejectives:

> Still, the (presumably) spurious correlations of the two word-order variables with altitude remind us of the possibility for false findings here. (...)

> Whether or not the altitude/ejective correlation reveals a causal connection, we can expect the near future to bring us a large number of spurious correlational analyses, along with a few meaningful ones. There are three reasons for this:

> (1) The existence of digital datasets makes it increasingly easy to perform quantitative checks on hypotheses about possible relationships between linguistic and non-linguistic variables;

> (2) The astronomically large number of such possible relationships guarantees that many of them should exhibit a strong pair-wise connection by chance, even if all of the distributions were statistically independent;

> (3) The distributions are not statistically independent, due to factors such as cultural and geographical diffusion.

> Note that the "file drawer effect" strongly undermines the often-made argument "But I/we made the hypothesis before we checked, we didn't just dredge for correlations and then try to explain them". The data-dredging (and the associated multiple comparisons) can (and do) occur across many unconnected investigations, with only the "significant" ones getting published.

In short, such correspondences aren't impossible, but it's a lot of effort to show that they're not just random coincidences. Languages are incredibly complex systems, and aren't independent of each other - which makes them extremely difficult to do statistics on. Personally, I think for a lot of purposes (including these) the set of all human languages isn't a statistically significant sample size - the systems are too complex and too interrelated for only seven thousand data points to be anywhere near enough to show clear trends above the background of noise.

[removed]

[removed]

Maybe the simplest answer to your question is that weather patterns are chaotic.

The concept of chaos is not difficult to understand. A system is chaotic if a very tiny change in its state can cause a major change to its state further down the road. There are a bunch of videos on Youtube of double pendulums - this is one of the simplest chaotic systems.

So, weather is difficult to predict. Weather forecasters can generally do a pretty good job of predicting the weather 3 days away, but more than that, and it gets a bit dicey. Having said that, there are macro patterns like El Nino/La Nina which can affect the weather for a long period of time.

[removed]

There are large systems and cycles that impact our weather.

There are ocean oscillations that vary due to sea temperature, air pressure, and wind and often have periods in positive or negative phases.

The jet streams and Hadley Cells can also impact our weather. See this link from NWS to read about how these work.

[removed]

What you are seeing these days, that feels like a short term - once in a life time weather - is actually caused by climate change - so there is nothing random about it, it is fully man made.

The freeze of the US over the past weeks is cause by shifting jet streams which is allowing and pulling more of the cold air from the noth pole down. In return the north pole have gotten a little bit warmer because, hey you got the cold air instead, and in return you will find that more ice will melt.

The extremes rains on the west coast, is also caused by warming of the pacific oceans all the way over by the Philippines, when the ocean is just 1-2F warmer it evaporates significantly more ocean water, and that then drops when it reaches land.

So the "paradox" is that the same global warming can result in climate change in different ways, causing weather to be "weird" like freezing in the midwest, and extreme rain in the west.

I'm sure we could find plenty of other examples - but the pattern is the same - the weather is going to be more extreme in different ways, with each region being affected differently.

So for the temperature anomaly, would North America / Europe recently be an example of this? Negative anomaly in America and positive in Europe?

[removed]

[removed]

It is difficult to say with certainty what the weather will be like in the coming weeks based on the weather that has occurred in the past. Weather patterns can change over time and can be influenced by a variety of factors such as temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure.

That being said, if it has been raining for two weeks straight and the average monthly climate for that place typically only has five rainy days, it is possible that the weather in the coming weeks may be less rainy. However, this is not guaranteed and the weather could continue to be rainy or could become more or less rainy for any number of reasons. Ultimately, it is always best to be prepared for a variety of weather conditions and to stay informed about the local weather forecast.

[removed]

> Is it like a child's toy where squares fit into squares and circles fit into circles?

That's pretty much how it works for putting things together. When the proteins have to do more, they have to change shape. But that still depends on how they're put together, they're like little machines with like springs, levers etc.

So the shape of the centromeres dictates they behave in this complex manner of arrangement? Is it like a child's toy where squares fit into squares and circles fit into circles? I still struggle to understand how this can happen with zero guidance from a brain. It's just the shape of the molecules? What you described they do is so complicated.