Evolution theory.

1. Mar 9, 2004

b11ngoo

Edit. My ideas are incomplete.

Last edited: Mar 12, 2004
2. Mar 9, 2004

Dissident Dan

Huh?

Will anyone join me for a big "WTF?!"?

3. Mar 9, 2004

WTF??

4. Mar 9, 2004

Staff: Mentor

Yes, but what kind of cookies?

MMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmm. Coooookies.

5. Mar 9, 2004

Staff: Mentor

Ok, I was going to ask WTF??? But I thought maybe he meant, in a very weird way, that we needed diversity to survive.

6. Mar 9, 2004

Dissident Dan

I think that (s)he's been infected by Doug Moon.

7. Mar 9, 2004

the_truth

Actually I think he meant we need to create points to survive. In otherwords we need to become a load of social darwinist spartans.

8. Mar 10, 2004

Guybrush Threepwood

maybe he means the Internet type cookies

9. Mar 10, 2004

Guybrush Threepwood

sooo let me get this straight.....
If I don't have sex I'll evolve???
What kind of evolution are you refering to?

10. Mar 10, 2004

Deeviant

Lets see here...

Evolution is driven by natural selection, not geometry or ganja cookies. Points don't evolve, life does. Your right, people aren't defined by geometry? I like to climb cliffs and I have fallen a couple times yet evolution has not killed me(obviously).

The vocabulary of your "theory" needs to be more cleary defined, but in order for that to happen, you would probably have to know what you are talking about.

11. Mar 10, 2004

Deeviant

First, define a "unified method" and tell me why evolution should/does follow your "unified method". Secondly, provide some sort of geometrical proof of what you say, you can't just say "this is true because of geometry!" you must actually show data or mathemetical evidence that supports your theory.

I am pretty strong though, I've got a hard head too.

12. Mar 11, 2004

Deeviant

I have a most conclusive mathematical proof proving that your statement is false..

Alpha + beta - oranges = One happy monkey.

As you can see here, it is obvious that your statement is wrong. I would perhaps try a different angle if I were you.

13. Mar 11, 2004

Deeviant

I hold that my postulate is just as valid as yours.