The Gamma Postures

If you want to see a prime example of Gamma posturing, look no further than Curt Doolittle’s amusingly inept response to my reference to the mathematical impossibility of evolution by natural selection accounting for the observed genetic variance of modern species. He was responding to my initial post on Gab, which linked back to my recent post on the discovery that Charles Darwin plagiarized Patrick Matthew’s earlier work. Note the way in which his behavior is textbook gamma.

You probably know that evolution is a mathematically impossible fraud. But what you may not know is that Darwin was a plagiarist and a fraudulent anti-Christian psyop from the very beginning.

This was Mr. Doolittle’s response:

@voxday VOX: You aren’t intellectually capable of making that statement, and for those of us who are, it’s one of the dumbest possible statements one could make.

So quite the contrary, evolution is mathematically deterministic because the first principle of the universe is equivalent to the term ‘evolve’.

In fact, the interesting thing about life on earth is that it occurred so quickly in the history of the universe, since it takes so much time to evolve the elements necessary, by generations of stars’ life cycles. And extinction events caused rapid evolution by creating punctuated equilibriums. One of which is ‘humans’ over the past three million years.

No more of your lies.

You’re flat-out wrong, Curt. And I’m a lot smarter than you are, so you really should think twice before trying to “correct” your intellectual superiors.

You haven’t done the math. You clearly haven’t even UNDERSTOOD the math, or the problems it presents to those who believe that evolution by natural selection is capable of accounting for the observed genetic variance in modern species, including homo sapiens sapiens.

Your proposed excuse of “extinction events” is not only obvious, it’s also not viable due to the known near-extinction events and their effects on the genetic variance of affected species such as the cheetah.

You simply don’t possess the knowledge required to even begin discussing the matter, you haven’t done the required work, and it is obvious to anyone who has. Posturing and making snarky comments – your usual modus operandi – isn’t going to suffice here.

By all means, feel free to show us the math that works. Hypothesize as many extinction events and punctuated equilibriums as you like and show us precisely how many are required. You won’t be the first to try and fail, and you won’t be the last.

@voxday There is zero chance you’re smarter than I am. Zero chance you’ve done the math. And an absolute certainty you’re quoting a Yale professor of theology who also claimed he’d done the math. And both of you proving that the function of Abrahamism is to teach adherence to lie so that they can engage in social construction of falsehoods, in order to collectively obtain false confidence is by false pretense of sexual, social, political, economic, military, status, explaining their evasion (or failure) of evolutionary adaptation, precisely because they lack that status by demonstrable means other than social construction of falsehoods.

The female means of lying by undermining truth and social construction of falsehoods: Judaism > Christianity > Islam … Marxism > Neo-Marxism > Postmodernism > PC-Woke.

Same tactics (female undermining of truth) same strategy (social construction of a falsehood that attempts to deny evolutionary superiority) and same result (Dark Age of Ignorance and Superstition).

That’s the truth of why you lie, the history of why you lie, and the technique by which you lie, and the evolutionary origin of how and why you lie, in the female means of anti-social behavior, economic, political, cultural, civilizational warfare, because the female is weaker, and must seduce with false promises (lie) and undermine with disinformation (lie) by fomenting insurrection (war) because of her (your) weakness.

Period. End of Story. So, Accusation Submitted. Argument Presented. Judgment Presented. Conviction Issued. The only question is the sentencing and the punishment for your crimes against humanity.

And yet, I am observably smarter than you are. I have done the math. I am not quoting anyone, let alone “a Yale professor of theology”. Your “absolute certainty” is not only 100 percent false, it is easily proven to be false since the evidence has been public for years.

I’ve publicly debated JF Gariepy about this. The original work has been posted on my blog since 2019. The only one lying here is you, as everyone can easily confirm.

But congratulations on proving my statement that you don’t do the work, you don’t possess the relevant information, and that your modus operandi is nothing more than snark and posturing.

Transcript of 2019 debate

Math behind the mathematical impossibility argument