I would except for one thing.
I don't explain to whimpering cowards. I just toss out an insult or two, and spend my time on people of more worth.
I called you're bluff. You got absolutely nothing.
I would except for one thing.
I don't explain to whimpering cowards. I just toss out an insult or two, and spend my time on people of more worth.
And you got whimpering about what a useless drone you are.I called you're bluff. You got absolutely nothing.
And you got whimpering about what a useless drone you are.
Yay, you.
Better'n your method, which as Corduroy has pointed out, begins with you claiming you have "mathematical proof" of something, then spending several pages of back-and-forth proving that you 1) don't have mathematical proof of your thesis, 2) don't understand mathematics, 3) don't even understand your thesis, and 4) think repetition adds truth value.Insult are always the most intellectual way of arguing of course . Especially when arguing you're human superiority over basic natural animal instincts. Nothing shows above animalistic instincts like a emotionally compromised response.
The equation is simple.
We are the result of what survives best.
What didn't die
Plus what reproduced the most.
You should have figured that out by now.
That's not an equation. The hint is that there are no numbers or mathematical symbols in it.
Here's another hard truth for you: you are never getting off this planet, no matter how many nickels and dimes you save. And your tendency to respond to demonstrations that you don't know what you're talking about with non sequiturs like "I'm getting off this rock" don't detract from the conclusion you don't know what you're talking about, they add to it.
You base your alleged arguments on "facts" that are backed by nothing but your assertion they're true, then follow them with "reasoning" that consists of a laundry list of logical fallacies, and completely ignore proof that you're wrong or just plain crazy.
"To argue with someone who has abandoned the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. . ."
-- James Madison
That's why I don't argue with you.
I don't believe in anything. The theory of evolution, which by the way you do not understand, is the best explanation of observed data currently available. No belief required.Behaviours that have better survival chances then other behaviour will be promoted and more common within life.
If you don't believe in the evolutionary theory then just say so. You're allowed to you're opinion.
If you don't want to believe in what is easily observable in the universe. That's fine. We used to call people who thought the world was round crazy.
I don't believe in anything. The theory of evolution, which by the way you do not understand, is the best explanation of observed data currently available. No belief required.
If it's that easy, you'll certainly have no trouble giving us the equation. Have at it.My survival chances and the elimination of those who could not over a period of billions of years is perfectly mathematical. And is easily a equation.
What's called racism is actually bigotry. People like you who insist there are races of people continue to perpetuate the "racist" attitudes of White 17th century Europeans that race is based on skin colour.There is racism in Japan, Korea, Africa, India. Everywhere. In all society it was not well viewed to marry into other races.
Well, we all know what opinions are worth.My opinion is you are living in denial of the truth.
Again, it's called bigotry. Don't be so lazy.There is proof of racism everywhere on earth.
Race based on skin colour is a purely European construct. Discrimination based on culture or ethnicity is called bigotry.To classify racism to 17th century European society is racist in itself.
How is that even possible??There have been clan wars before mankind even existed.
Ridiculum Argumentum. Secluded species are very at risk to even minute changes in their environment. Humans have expanded across the globe and live in a wide variety of environments all because we don't just hang around and act like a bunch of hermits. There is not one single society of people who hasn't contributed something to man's vast sum of knowledge at some point or another.Please consider how can a new species develop? Dose it simply magically appear? Or does a race of a species eventually branch off into a new species after millions of years of involuntary & voluntarily seclusion from other races of its same species?
If you think quoting Sherlock Holmes is a persuasive argument in this case, you are dead wrong. And no, you applied Occam's Razor incorrectly as well.If you eliminate the impossible, Then the obvious possibilities are the only answers.
Modern humans are it's own species you fool. The last time there has been more than one race of humans living at the same time as modern humans is just before the last Neanderthal died.Without voluntary and involuntary seclusion, a race will never develop into its own species.
Which is why mixing is much more important than seclusion. You get an infusion of new DNA that moves biodiversity along. If that didn't happen, then life's diversity wouldn't be constantly changing or being reborn after an ELE.Biodiversity is extremely important to the survival of life in the Universe.
Uhhhh...yeah. :roll:Thats why the promotion & creation of biodiversity will always be a basic instinct in all living things.
And that's why you need to constantly police equality.
Because equality is at odds with basic living survival instincts. Billions of years of evolution that weeded out the less capable at doing two simple things. Not dieing and having the most possible number of offspring.
If only one species of life existed in the universe.
Would it be easier or harder for all life in the universe to be wiped out?
Over millions of years life that voluntarily secluded themselves and help create more biodiversity will have a advantage over life that doesn't.
The universe shapes behaviour of life towards a behaviour that gives it better odds of survival.
Over the period of billions of years of evolution, Behaviour that promoted survival becomes basic instincts.
Spending billions of dollars social policing ourselves against our own natural survival instincts built in our DNA from billions of years of life achieving survival seems to me like the biggest waste of our earthly resources.
Spending money on having less chance of surviving long term seems counter productive.
There are many much better investment I value above policy that lowers our chance @ survival.
And as Colpy has pointed out, it doesn't fit the actual definition of "bigotry" either. It's actually overgeneralization, and in Angstrom's case, since he's a whimpering li'l pussy, it's always negative overgeneralization.What's called racism is actually bigotry. People like you who insist there are races of people continue to perpetuate the "racist" attitudes of White 17th century Europeans that race is based on skin colour.
That's what bigotry is though. Over generalizing about a particular ethnic group is stereotyping and that is a form of bigotry. Even when you try and say something that's seems complimentary like, "Asians are good at math", that's actually a bigoted comment although certainly not a harsh one like saying "Asian can't drive for shit".And as Colpy has pointed out, it doesn't fit the actual definition of "bigotry" either. It's actually overgeneralization,
If it's that easy, you'll certainly have no trouble giving us the equation. Have at it.
Well, first, that's not an equation.Survivability odds will dictate behaviour of life. It stimulates behaviour that add greater chances to survive over time.
Ok now explain to me where i got evolution theory wrong.
No, it actually isn't. Mules and hinnys survive quite nicely, thank you, by they can't reproduce.So reproduction will not equate survival pass you're own mortality??? Basically is the same.
Only if it's genetic. Otherwise, the specific idiocy you're following is called "Lysenkoism."If a behaviour helps with reproduction that behaviour will not be transferred to offsprings?
So, if something has odds of one in three of surviving, does that mean it can be 2/3 dead?Over a period of billions of years it became a odd maker. Because anomalies only happened rarely. Over a long period.
No, it actually isn't. Mules and hinnys survive quite nicely, thank you, by they can't reproduce.
Only if it's genetic. Otherwise, the specific idiocy you're following is called "Lysenkoism."
So, if something has odds of one in three of surviving, does that mean it can be 2/3 dead?
Nope. Dead is either 0 or total. Your grasp of statistics is just as sound as your grasp of other mathematics.