LAVA - Lossy Adaptation Via (Natural Selection) of Alleles (Explained)

Ha. I've been stuck with one problem at work for more than year. My hatred for stats exceeds your own. I hope, otherwise your life must suck...

Interesting. You read... that. And then say... this. Mmmmm.
I feel like this highlights something, but I can't quite put my finger on it...I have these vague feelings, and some odd impressions floating around in my head... Damn these drugs, I feel like I've been shot through the cerebral-cortex.===logorrhea: "incoherent talkativeness occurring in certain kinds of mental illness, such as mania."
"Logorrhoea is a symptom of an underlying illness, and should be treated by a medical professional."
Ouch. Insult via dictionary & www, take 2.Edited by AChristianDarkly, : more wiki

Whoo.The degree to which you defend your 'point', while missing the point, is a purple bunny (might as well start acting schizophrenic.)The problem with label-gunning, is that you start to see what is not there, jackass.
(You know, I rather prefer to be insulted for what is real. More fun your way, I guess.)Did I ever reject statistics? Did I ever state that there is such a thing as 'absolute proof?'
I did not. Why would I. I am aware of the point you are trying to make. I kind of thought everyone did.
The g-constant in gravity is empirical. Which means measurements. Which means stats. Pretty much everything is measurements (in the physical world.) So pretty much everything is stats.
I know. I have not said otherwise. That, however, is not the point.
(Why does gravity exist, exactly? {Evolution? Heh. That is so famous by now.} No one knows. But so what? Matter attracts matter. This happens. Fact. But g is still {statistically} empirical.){Smoking}: Cancer is somewhat well understood, yes? It is known that some kind of biochemical mechanism causes it, yes? As opposed to being caused by magnets, or nearby lightning strikes, or eating too much cheese, or wearing the colour pink, or watching too much Oprah, yes? (These are all possible alternatives.)
Take a whole bunch of cell cultures: those you treat with carcinogens tend to get cancer. The others far less so. This is not an issue of degree, it is a question of causality.
But _more_ than that: cancer cells show certain types of damage. It kind of makes sense to the experts that certain chemicals can indeed cause those types of damage.
It makes sense. (REAL sense. Not imagined sense.)
Which is B. Which is my point. Is this getting through your evo-powered-brain-armor yet?Sigh. Let me try another track: How do you choose A?If you were to bother to go read a (good; just in case) textbook on stats, under the section on HT, you will notice them carping on and on about 'listing all the alternatives.'
B limits it down to one. Kind of. Until something better comes along. Such is science.
(It is hardly my fault that you do not want to adhere to the basic rules of HT. Sometimes being a rebel is just not right.) B. Are you still blind? Do you not get the purpose of B? I am sure it has a fancy name. I only know it in terms of 'listing all the alternatives'.Yes. I agree. It is the same basic procedure for all 'science.' But. Sometimes there is B. And. Sometimes not.This is my point. I assume you get it now. (Or am I being silly.)So. Is there a B for Evolution? Most certainly. With the magnificently fuzzy definition that exists for 'Evolution', you can indeed setup experiments that prove this. Conclusively. Via hypothesis testing. (Sound familiar?)Now. I am not an expert. In pretty much anything. So I am reduced to picking up the odd little things that experts do say, and kind of limping along from there.
So. Did you miss my point about Wolfram? What do you think that implies about B for ToE?
Do you not understand what the implication is of what he is saying?However. The question is actually a lot more basic than all this. To some extent, an expert is not required. Why? Because the rules of science are known.
You can see gravity in action. Pick up rock (matter), and it will move towards more matter (earth.)
You cannot see the process, or processes, that drive evolution. You cannot infer it directly (action on rock). Only very indirectly (fossil record, patterns in DNA, etc. etc.)Sigh. Get it?
(A bit more bluntly then. ToE 'edits' DNA. This {general} editing process is _invisible_. Cannot be directly inferred.) {X} Unless you directly trace the action of ToE on the DNA. Aka BOB.
(This was the 'how well can you abstract' part.)Oh. But silly me. If you cannot infer it directly, then just re-define 'evolution' until you can. Like saying AVA is part of evolution. Easy. Just like that. Snap!Or you play with the dialectic, as with the so-called 'fact of evolution.' (See the damn Tome, or do not ask.)This is my problem with the whole sorry setup.Now. Not being overly well educated, but hopefully not being a complete moron, I came to this forum with my silly 'BOB' thing. Which simply leads to looking for ToE acting directly on the DNA. Since, however, no one will ever read the Tome of the Demon, that makes this conversation dead.
(Honestly, I never expected this kind of detail would come up, hence the less complex choice of topic-path, namely LAVA.)I _think_ my understanding of BOB makes sense. Which is why I am here.
I _think_ the whole LAVA thing makes sense. Ditto.Again, you confuse me. You say silly things the one moment, and then make a lot of sense the next. Ah. Dawn.I am tired. It is past 11 at night, and I have to go work tomorrow.I'll think about all this some more, and maybe reply again tomorrow night. Think I've said everything I wanted to, though.And no. F@cking Darwin does not love. Evolution has the heart of a hungry and horny satanist.{X2} HT isn't all that great, by the way. It kind of sucks, actually. To some extent, 'common sense' does end up being the final arbitrator.Edited by AChristianDarkly, : {X}Edited by AChristianDarkly, : (X2)

Let me get this over with.=====The fact that I do not reject statistics, the very fact that my ABC path (aka proof) USES the same statistics as the AC path, should have cleared this 'proof' nonsense up. 'Proof' is a colloquial short-hand. Like what you use in informal settings, like a forum.
(Wiki and dictionary the word, if you like.)You are the label-gunner, because you are blindly assuming, and then stating as fact, that I am not aware of the limitations of using the word 'proof', you silly little idiot child.
Clearly, you are making an issue out of nothing. I would assume for the purposes of not having to face up to the magnificent examples of stupidly on your part, thus far.
It is of course quite valid to raise the issue of correctly understanding 'proof' in the scientific context. Fair enough.
It should be obvious by now that I have at least a basically sufficient grasp of the ideas involved.
However. I think that it is quite obvious that you could not possibly be so stupid as to not grasp the difference between having a B available, and not. Therefore you are using this as an excuse to engage in endless, mindless, chatter. Aka bullsh@t.
You are playing debate-debate. Were.
Sorry. This is now over, little rat-f@ck child.How does my being factual in pointing out that you are, observably, a label-gunner, make me one. You know, talking sh@t, like you do, just for the sake of talking sh@t, like you do, is childish. You teensy twerp.===== I will assume you are talking cr@p. More specifically, you are lying.I am unsure how to respond to the rest of your chatter. Taking it as a given that you are a liar, and are engaging in debate-debate, I will perhaps spare a sentence or two, here and there, on your post. No. It is not my big point. Not in these posts. (In the main post, it is a big point. After some restrictions and explanations.) Here it has to do with B versus no B. As you well know. Yes, I know that there is no way to look into a cell and actually watch the chemical reactions taking place there. And scientists responded to this by...?
As you well know. You may recall this bit. At this point the irony is again mountainous:
1st) Do you not realize that your example is AVA?
2nd) Do you not realize that this is exactly the re-definition mentioned (done decades ago, by people just like you, Bluejay)?
WTF?
You are aware that through selective breeding, you can get Pekinese from wolves. (Essentially the exact same process as in your example.) I call it AVA. Look for it, if you want.
If you want to _define_ AVA as part of Evolution, then of course you can prove it. Just like you have just done. Just like it was done in your example.
Sometimes irony just jumps on you and starts dancing, Bluejay.
This is a big point in the Tome of the Demon. In fact, the LAVA argument rests on this.
AVA means simply playing Lego with already available alleles. Nothing new comes into being. Hence, my claim that calling this process evolution is deceptive as worst, and serves no purpose at best.
(Incidentally, I am quite certain this is why both subbie and DrA are absolutely refusing to read the Tome of the Demon. This is why they so are so deeply allergic to defining something like 'ordered complexity' {aka BOB for short}, from the fossil record.)
This type of thing is indeed a central proof of your all-embracing definition of evolution. Obviously, I was trying to make the point about B in this part of the post.
Just more taking cr@p on your part, I know.===== Are you perhaps referring to my editing of the main post? In that case the irony, oh the irony: you refuse to read it, {I blindly assume from the lack of any indication to the contrary} then complain that I edited it. Insinuating that I am somehow a dishonest piece of sh@t for doing so. Huh. Given the flood of complaints, surely I would have had more than enough justification to do a complete rewrite, not just make a few relatively minor changes. (Check the PNT area. The 'original' is not gone. Do a comparison if you like.) And as for the _addition_ of the W.I.P. section, for the sake of trying to make things more clear: well, that was just plain evil, was it not?I post. Read it through a few times. Wait. Come back and repeat. Make edits (almost always very small ones.) Once I have done that, I leave it.
If you replied too rapidly, then that is your problem. Unless you want to accuse me of something. If so, please take it up with the admins, misrepresentation is against the forum rules, after all. Perhaps a record of all edits are kept by them. If so, then you have my permission (if required at all), to go ask them for it all. Knock yourself out.=====I find that I have a few things to say about you, to you, you despicable little worm.There is of course no way that anyone can be so utterly dim-witted so as to not get the point I made (so many times) about B. Therefore you did. Therefore you are a liar.
Being dishonest is a bad thing: people remember, like I will. They will also refuse to have anything more to do with you, like I will. Right after this post.You are a Debater. You do not, and likely cannot, reason. (Perhaps you can, but then that would imply that you are lying _so much_ that it is not visible.) You have a limited ability to abstract: you cannot make fine distinctions (again, lying would obscure this: but why would you want to look stupid?)
What makes you terminally a smurf, however, is that you do not actually understand what you read. I seriously doubt this is intentional, since it shows you up as a pretentious numskull.Your 'intellect' seems to be based on pretense. Without either definitions, or articles, or chapters in books, to 'echo off' from, you are vacuous. (Which allowed the detection of your smurf-genes, FYI.)Lastly. Little children learn an interesting game at some point: repeatedly asking 'why', or 'how.' You do the same thing, with just with more general questions. Perhaps this could be called baiting or leading, but I rather doubt that is what it is: it really seems to be how you build your posts. Which means you post cr@p, inevitably.=====I made several mistakes on this forum.
*) The first was assuming intellectual honesty from any of you. You, subbie, and DrA are all liars. You are the direct, obvious kind. {Either you are an utter moron, or a liar.} The other two rest on the fact that no one can know what goes on inside the mind of another. (You also make liberal use of this.) However. One can consider their powerful insistence against simply reading 'yet another lot of mindless drivel.' This truly makes no sense. I do talk a lot, but I am most certainly not gibbering. So why the insistence that I am? A reasonable man would conclude that they do not wish to be bothered. Fair enough. But rather than say that outright, instead they create two myths: the Tome and the Insane Author. That is a strong case for their intellectual dishonesty: hence they are liars.
*) In a sense I allowed the farce concerning the 'gibberish' factor of the main post to come into being. (I was not to blame for this however. I really was trying to be nice and accommodating.) Both subbie and DrA are, simply put, lying about the intelligibility of the Tome of the Demon.
Normally one cannot prove lying. In this case however, the test is blindingly simple. Read the main post, and see if the reactions to it are reasonable. I have asked two other people to read it. I told them what was being said here. They said you were all talking nonsense. One of them said you were talking cr@p.
*) There is no real justification for the way I have been represented here as being, actually, insane. This was made a part of the whole 'legend of the gibberish' construct. By subbie and DrA. Coupled to this, both subbie and DrA started saying that everything that I was posting was indicative of a kind of insanity. Not that I am not eloquent, but that I am insane. This, too, was part of the same underlying, deceptive mindset held in common by all 3 of you.So far, it seems to me, not one of you has any intention of doing anything else besides perform mindless evangelization of Evolution. Or, in the case of BJ, mindlessly bullsh@tting until kingdom come.Therefore it follows that attempting to converse with any of you is less than pointless.Therefore I will ignore you three from now on, and hope that someone will come along and actually read what I wrote. And start conversing in a sane fashion.Speaking To Some New Person:
My stated goal is the debugging of the Tome of the Demon. If you are not willing to help me in this regard, then I have no desire to talk to you. I am sick of just 'talking.'

Mmmm. Did I ever mention that my native tongue is not English? I never thought my English was so utterly... insane. Strange, I never had this problem until I came here.
Perhaps the problem lies on your side of the ocean - perhaps you are all exposed to brackets only at a very late stage in your lives. Wow. So your minds can call be shut down by use of... brackets.Yeah right. Of course it is all unreadable garbage. Of course. I get you. {Wink wink.}=intelligibility ~ gibberish ~ ~ meaning is still deeply cryptic= Read a lot lately? Silly to ask, I know. #20 may be humorous (to me anyway), but clear enough. The lesson Bluejay taught me: there is such a thing as a minimally acceptable level of comprehension in another human being. Beyond that, I no longer believe.
I did define BOB. Clearly enough. Doing a very simple search for those three letters in the main topic post, would have led you straight to a much better definition.Perhaps you truly just breezed past, and did not expend much effort in pouring over what you considered to be the semi-sane (at the best) babblings of yet another nut. Perhaps. But after Bluejay, and subbie, I find myself stripped of congeniality. If you truly did not intend to be a bastard, then I am really sorry this came to pass.However. The very fact that you are STILL asking me to define it... I have. And after Bluejay, and graciously assigning a high level of intelligence to you...=Being a nincompoop however, I did keep thinking about why it seems to difficult to grasp what I mean with AVA and BOB. So I tried to see it from the perspective of you all.
So yet another little-big post will follow this one. Where BOB and AVA are now, as much as my meager abilities allow, both put into something that vaguely resembles a context you might all grasp.
Highly insulting context, of course. I like Free 4 All. Why would anyone want to be anywhere else?
Not that it will matter, of course. Which is why I did it for myself; my goal is still unchanged. I hope to add a 3rd edit to the WIP section sometime based on this.Farewell.

Dedicated To Whomever Was Masochistic Enough To Read These Posts=====BOB & AVA - The Hypocracy Of EvolutionShould someone come whistling along, wishing to understand how the concept of 'increasing complexity' fits into the whole murky business that is 'evolution', he will find himself rewarded by being accused of being unclear, obtuse. At best.
I introduced a few new labels {BOB and AVA} in the Tome of the Demon. These 'innovations' were met by ridicule, with the implication that someone who does such things is mentally deficient. And crazy. Of course, had someone gone and told me the proper naming for those two little buzzing bees, then with the permission of everyone involved, I would, with real, genuine, gladness, have edited the Tome of the Demon to correct them.
Instead there was the madness and the stupidly. Said in the nicest way possible, of course. Or not, really.
Again, a silly moron might question as to the Why of this, but that would be paranoid, stupid and insane. And possibly childish as well. Oh dear.Let me therefore say, now. Oh really.
And after reading this, ask yourself this: is what is written here REALLY so alien? Is it new? Is it weird? What. Is. The damn problem?===The Hypocrisy That Is EvolutionIt is argued, inevitably, that those who do not accept evolution to be true are stupid and insane. And that they simply do not understand what evolution is.It is true that once you know what evolution is, that it is, undoubtedly, true & correct. Of course. Obviously.What Follows Is Shining Hypocrisy: The Awesome Ultra-Inclusive Master Definition of Evolution is: Modified Offspring (a.k.a. Decent with Modification.)
Any Modification. Absolutely anything. And some Breeding thrown in for good measure.Honest!The two parents of some child each contribute to half of its DNA. Since the child is not a perfect clone of either parent, Evolution has occurred. This is an observable occurrence, and therefore evolution has been proven to be true. Technically.At this point you could just stop, since evolution has been proven, but evolution is not just proven, it is repeatedly proven. Because it is awesome, just like Po the Panda. Or maybe even more (although being more awesome than a talking Panda that can disintegrate you at will...)Before going on, you have to undergo an Enlightenment, a mystical experience, that will let the following two points make rational sense to you (yes, you are a very special person indeed):
*) In the Practice of the Theory of Evolution, there are no sub-sections, no sub-divisions, {like AVA and BOB purport to be, for example.} There is only The One Thing which is the Awesome Definition.
*) In the Practice of the Theory of Evolution, it therefore follows from the above that proof of anything, anywhere, anytime, is proof of the correctness of everything, everywhere, for all time.
The amazing thing is that I am actually not talking cr@p. Read the rest of this post and see for yourself.Enter natural selection. Normally under the influence of a selector (effectively a force applied, in the real world, on some living creatures), the gene-frequency of a given population changes. (As living things breed, genes are randomly copied from the two parents, without any change to any individual gene whatsoever, to the offspring.) This means that, for example, the percentage of tall-genes in a given population might change. (An allele is an alternate copy of a specific gene: eye colour is a rough example. But several genes might work together to achieve some specific physical modification. A classic example of this last would be: height.)
This process can, famously, convert wolves into Pekinese. Which also is, technically, another proof of evolution. There is also the quaint 36-year snake story (simply the allele frequency changes mentioned above), which is an actual, real, SCIENTIFICALLY accepted, proof of evolution. ('Scientific' because it happened without human interference. Which is a really silly distinction to make between these two cases, if you think about it for like, a second.)
These events have been observed, they are understood, and serve as proof for evolution, yet again. Yay!
This has all been folded into being part of The One Thing, you see, via the Awesome Definition.Logically, of course, if your child has a birth-mark, and neither parents have the exact same birthmark, in the exact same place, that would also be evolution. Offspring has been modified/ is different. Provable. Same goes for a wart, or a birth defect of some kind - you just have to be born with it.
Per definition, since DNA was not specifically specified in the Awesome Definition. Oops, or more bullcr@p? After a while you really start to wonder. (But there is no reason to be silly about this. Of course a wart, or a birth defect, is not evolution. Whereupon I would ask: Why not? The Awesome Definition is pretty broadly stated, after all.
If you want to start wildly grouping completely different things together, based solely on an insane verbal definition, then you get what you get, I say. Kind of like Noah on crystal meth.)And finally there is the following blatant nonsense. Perhaps one of the greatest lines of cr@p ever sold to the world at large. Yet this is the actual state of affairs:There are several ways in which the genes passed onto the next generation can be altered. (Normally, of course, they are just copied.) And example of this are point-mutations (which is actually just a point where something damages the DNA - in such a way as to still let it be DNA, and not just broken.
Other examples are recombination, lateral gene-transfer, etc. Fancy names. Ooh.)
Per definition, if any such a change does not kill the offspring (and it can still breed) evolution has occurred. Snap! Since this sort of thing has been recorded, this form (''FORM??? What!!!'' Um. Sorry. There is only The One Thing. My bad! Sorry again!) of evolution has also been proven.
But now, for sane people at least, this gets interesting.
{-X-}: The fossil-record shows that life started out as (small and) relatively simple, and over time became (bigger and) much more complex.
Since natural selection has been proven to work (in terms of evolution), and since mutations that do not kill (and still allow breeding) have been documented, this type {-X-} (''TYPE? Hey!!!'') of evolution is therefore also proven. Just. Like. That.
The mystery has been solved. By SCIENCE. Hallelujah.Well. Well, well. Well, sh@t.Yes. You insane, stupid Christian reading this. You were right all along. They really were talking complete, utter, and total frog-poopy. All along.====But, in the best tradition of debates and politics, let us completely ignore & forget the elephant, and move on.
So on to some other retarded nonsense; BOB and AVA.=AVA:Natural selection has two, discrete meanings. (Sorry, for sane people, two discrete meanings. In the Unity of the Weed, there is only The One Thing.)
1) Natural selection (in terms of its mechanism) is what happens when there are forces acting in the physical world, upon a given animal (part of some species). The more successful an animal is, the more likely it is to breed. Live and breed (better), or live and breed, or die and do not breed.
2) Natural selection (in terms of its effects) is what was described previously as altering the percentage of some of the alleles present in a given population. Read the Wikipedia quote below: quite a mouthful. I also likened this with Playing Lego with alleles. How evil and retarded of me. (Playing Lego is building, from a set of available building blocks, something or other. This is of course a very childish and un-scientific thing to say. Oh no. No wonder everyone is so utterly confused. The sheer, utter, horror. Lego. My god, what have I done... I introduced... an abstraction! OH NO!) Wow. In my evil ignorance I considered natural selection to only be the mechanism-part. (I blame too much BBC. And National Geographic. And Discovery Channel.) Since I had no idea that effects-part was linked to the exact same word, I gave it another, namely AVA. Adaptation Via (natural selection of) Alleles.
Would have been nice to have someone tell me about this double meaning. (Oh well. I am only an insane idiot, after all. Rather not waste pixel ink on human garbage.)BUT my ignorance went beyond the scope of mere evil! When I dared to name this effects-part, 'adaptation,' I really crossed the line! Oh no!
As far as I know (and I know so little, but correcting/ informing me seems to be SUCH a drag) there is no real term for what I call AVA. Unless it is some 50 syllable tongue-twister. In which case AVA is just so much cuter. My Act of Ultimate Evil was, you see, to dare to limit what is meant by 'Adaptation'. Genetic mutations, you see, are ALSO a part of 'Adaptation.'
{See BOB in the next section for my insanely stupid take on this.}
Therefore I am a gibbering idiot for even daring to be so absolutely f@cking stupid as to use, and dream up, sh@t like AVA. What a silly, stupid, pathetic, little idiot I am. And insane. Do not forget insane.'Adaptation' is another wonder-word, like 'evolution.' It is not a usable definition. AT ALL. Like the word 'evolution,' its sole use lies in the realm of RHETORIC. Period.Unless, of course, I go like all super-nuts and say: 'No! I will use this word as per its common sense meaning! Screw you!' How could I have been so stupid to use that Holy Word in such a profane manner? I still do not know.AVA. Get it now? This is a rhetorical question. The answer is no, of course.=BOB:Normal people, i.e. stupid, ignorant rock-heads, have this crazy idea that evolution has something to do with life become more complex. Or even changing really fundamentally, like from bacteria to a tree.This can again be blamed on the BBC, National Geographic, and the Discovery Channel. Those bastards. Confusing the whole world as they do. Maybe some experts should correct them. Oh, wait... Um?Classically, there is something called the 'Fact of Evolution.' Useless little description. Avoids talking specifically about the time frame (billions of years), or the type of observations involved (fossils in rocks), and the method of experimentation (digging up the rocks.)
{As for the Tree of Life, see the Tome of the Demon for a little something on it. Or don't. So far, these pattern-proofs pretty much reduce down to: 'well it sure looks like it.' Yay for the warriors of science!} Amen! The fossils in the rocks were examined, and it was noticed that life became more complex. Over time.
Is there a term for this? Everyone is allergic to the use of words like 'information increase,' or 'complexity increase.' Which leaves... what?
Nothing. So I decided, in a humorous moment, to call this observed phenomenon, BOB+. As time goes by, BOB increases.NO! NO!! THIS IS ALL SO INSANE! And stupid. Who can understand, actually make sense, of such madness as 'BOB' ?! MY BRAIN! IT IS BURNING!! OH GOD - I AM DYING!!! HELP ME!!!!If something does not have a proper, useable term associated with it, what to do? I am asking, because it is immature, unscientific, stupid and insane to do what I did.Unfortunately, things are just a little bit more involved than just all that.
Sigh.In order to actually USE this observed fossil data observation-thingy, it turned out to be necessary to do the following:
We can now see DNA, so we can see changes happening to it. We now also know that DNA stores the complex instructions to build highly complex organic molecules. {These highly complex organic molecules, are like highly complex machines in the following ways: small changes (damage) tend to stop (kill) function. Also, they have real, actual, functions that they perform. Kind of discriminating to pick only on employed genes, but I am a bad person.}
So. Just for the sake of argument, let us say that a BOB+ event has occurred when a new, non-trivialy-different, gene comes off some unknown assembly line (the nature of this assembly line does not matter - only the result.)
Since we can see DNA, we can track changes over time. So when a BOB+ event has occurred, we can go back and trace the path the new gene took to come into being.
SIMPLE.Proof of... Well, I have no idea, really. Ah, f@ck it: Proof of BOB+ Proof that evolution is true in this form (Form?! You little sh@t! F@cking little insane idiot!)......Or not. Well, kind of. There is a whole long spiel about what kind of rate one could perhaps expect BOB+ to happen at, and from that the indication seems to be that ToE looks to be kind of crappy.
Not exactly exact, but then I do not know enough to be able to do this part properly. (Not that is should be completely incorrect, I think.) I never expected this kind of anal-retentive nit-picking over nothings. All the empty bullsh@t. I had the moronic hope that this could all be improved, one way or another.
''Fly me to the moon...''BOB.
So cute.
Yet so utterly evil.
I mean. BOB. What kind of loser would use a word like, well, BOB?
That is so stupid!
Why, it looks to be the work of a madman!
What a load of cr@p!
Hey you! Yes you, retard! What the hell is the matter with you?!
Go away, grow up, and when you are ready to talk some sense, come back, and maybe we will deign to consider your horsesh@t again. Until then, f@ck off, you crazy moron!There is a lot more to this argument (BOB, not the insults.) But that would take up a lot of space... oh like for example the Tome of the Demon.=====There is of course a whole lot more to 'Evolution,' as well.
Should anyone care?When reading a reply to this specific post (if anyone should bother), please take note if there is simply yet more endless, pointless, nitpicking... Or if AVA and BOB are discussed in a real, proper sense. As opposed to discussed in a pretend, proper sense.Read carefully, if you will. Or not. It is a free reality, after all.Take note #1. Both AVA and BOB are simple, basic, concepts that rest on simple, basic observations. Do not let anyone try and tell you otherwise.
Take note #2. I tried to isolate the points in the Tome of the Demon from the rest of the sheer mess that is called 'Evolution'; so there is no point in trying to bring those other points back.Edited by AChristianDarkly, : fixed 'A dictionary writes'

Why hello.This topic has a main post. Over time, the idea became popular that reading the main topic post, would result in a demon manifesting, and eating your face off. From the inside!
In an attempt to be gentle and understanding with the highly superstitious natives, I re-named the main topic post as: The Legendary Tome of the Demon. (Psychosomatic manifestations can cause death, you now. Have to be responsible about this sort of thing.)
You see, no one dares to read it. It is the Legend you see, the fear of being face-eated.As a gesture of goodwill, perhaps you should read post#49 first. If you find yourself thinking 'what an insane moron' after that, then just think of all the time I just saved you. No need to thank me either. My pleasure. Really.Oh. And beware of the Evil of Brackets. They are bad.