pfrankinstein wrote:

You accuse me of not doing science.

This is a brute fact: you are not doing science.

What is EVOLUTION?; should be a question on an exam paper so students of the future do not make the same mistake you made eh THROWER?

Stop being a mendacious little runt, Paul.

Gibbering fuckwittery, I can accept... but if you insist on repeatedly lying about me, then I will return the favour and watch how you enjoy being lied about repeatedly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

In the field of social psychology, illusory superiority is a condition of cognitive bias wherein a person overestimates their own qualities and abilities, in relation to the same qualities and abilities of other people. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits. Overestimation of abilities compared to an objective measure is known as the overconfidence effect.

The term illusory superiority was first used by the researchers Van Yperen and Buunk, in 1991. The phenomenon is also known as the above-average effect, the superiority bias, the leniency error, the sense of relative superiority, the primus inter pares effect,[1] and the Lake Wobegon effect, named after the fictional town where all the children are above average.[2] The Dunning-Kruger effect is a form of illusory superiority shown by people on a task where their level of skill is low.

Your actual knowledge of evolution is terrible, Paul.

By terrible, I mean you appear to have had precisely zero formal training in any relevant field, and what few words you can employ about the subject can be directly traced to other members in this thread who informed you of your errors.

You wouldn't even be able to write a definition of evolution, let alone explain any aspect of its mechanisms, let alone understand them. This means that you have nothing of merit to say on the topic because you are functionally ignorant of it.

But even were you to know more and to be able to describe evolution accurately - that doesn't mean you're 'doing science'.

You appear to believe that merely talking about a notionally scientific topic is itself 'doing science'. This completely false - in fact, exactly as false as your comprehension of evolution. The act of science requires, as I have told you many times already, observation, inference, deductive hypothesis, experimentation, and report. You have done none of these things, and there is no indication you either understand that these are integral to science, or that you possess the competence to perform any of them.

This is basically a maelstrom of ignorance on your part where you whirl around focusing so hard on pretending you know what you're talking about that you can't even manage to present your contentions in a grammatically correct format. I predict your response to this post will be 1 to 2 sentences long and would fail a junior school expectation of writing ability.

All these factors combined paint a picture of someone desperate to be lent unearned and undeserved respect by complete strangers on the internet... strangers you have no respect for, strangers you are basically exploiting solely to boost your own ego. It's fucking pathetic Paul - grow the fuck up already.

I thought you might like to level with me THROWER.

Having established EVOLUTION = process. (We all know Paul) thrower.

How do you feel about 'chapter PROCESS'. The validated enquiry asks a writer.

I'm guessing that the lights are on but nobody's home.

I like the answer that is basic, yet complex all at the same time.

Paul.

Paul, what is your primary language?

BWE wrote:Paul, what is your primary language?

Stressed Human.

Paul.

Why stressed? But, I guess I'm assuming English is not your native language. Is that wrong?

pfrankinstein wrote:I thought you might like to level with me THROWER.

Yeah, because as we all know - I've been fucking coy until now!

pfrankinstein wrote:Having established EVOLUTION = process. (We all know Paul) thrower.

Go away Paul - we don't exist for you to dry hump.

pfrankinstein wrote:
I'm guessing that the lights are on but nobody's home.

In that metaphor, you scrub out a measly existence in a squalid cave, Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

You accuse me of not doing science.

This is a brute fact: you are not doing science.

Get away with you. The brutal fact is you do not know what your about.

Did our understanding of the subject itself evolve? Naturalist to biologist.

Should it stall and stagnate. Erm...

For all your cleverly written froth, I smile at the irony given the subject matter.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

You accuse me of not doing science.

This is a brute fact: you are not doing science.

Get away with you. The brutal fact is you do not know what your about.

Did our understanding of the subject itself evolve? Naturalist to biologist.

Should it stall and stagnate. Erm...

For all your cleverly written froth, I smile at the irony given the subject matter.

Paul.

Every single person at this web forum knows, Paul.

This is a sham too far.

This thread clearly shows for anyone reading who it is that doesn't know their arse from their elbow.

"Bet you can't tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?”

Fenrir wrote:"Bet you can't tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?”

1 degrees, 2 degrees, three de... oh wait, you said lesser spotted weasel frog - nope, I'm stumped! Therefore a crafted universe, with an optimizing process built into the Plank epoch!

Lol

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

You accuse me of not doing science.

This is a brute fact: you are not doing science.

Get away with you. The brutal fact is you do not know what your about.

Did our understanding of the subject itself evolve? Naturalist to biologist.

Should it stall and stagnate. Erm...

For all your cleverly written froth, I smile at the irony given the subject matter.

Paul.

Sorry Paul, but you’re not even “doing English” Let alone you’re doing something remotely to do with science. And I tell you this as a person who struggles with language myself.

I’m not sure why you’re stuck at where you’re at, whether it is because you think you’re brilliant or whether it is because you constructed a cognitive anchor allowing you some comfort, but it sure is not convincing to anybody. Just enjoy your personal paradigm. No need for you to have anybody else confirm it. One bang, one process dude. It’s true. Enjoy the wisdom!

BWE wrote:Paul, what is your primary language?

Gibberish. Isn't it obvious?

Spearthrower wrote:

What is EVOLUTION?; should be a question on an exam paper so students of the future do not make the same mistake you made eh THROWER?

Stop being a mendacious little runt, Paul.

Gibbering fuckwittery, I can accept... but if you insist on repeatedly lying about me, then I will return the favour and watch how you enjoy being lied about repeatedly.

Thrower turns into a troll.

What is EVOLUTION according to Charles Darwin?

Will you answer THROWER?

Fact is EVOLUTION = PROCESS.

You been barking up the wrong tree sir.

EVOLUTION = process fact. I have a logical anchor this side of rational logic.

Oh yes. Not pseudo science, you THROWER and those of your like, tradition based notion without a basis. A foundation....

Your OP troll.

Paul

Hermit wrote:

BWE wrote:Paul, what is your primary language?

Gibberish. Isn't it obvious?

Keep me where the light is.

https://youtu.be/pCOS1dujl0A

Paul.

Mechanism, NS Out dated ,Old hat, waste paper bin with the mouldy bread.

Testing the tradition core value against my own.

My Anchor: EVOLUTION = process.

The tradition EVOLUTION = effect, biology, speciation.

Paul.















Paul.

EVOLUTION = PROCESS

FUSION = PROCESS

SODUKO = PROCESS

MILD CHEDDAR = PROCESS

such science

much smartness

PUMP UP THE VOLUME