Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pat
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 215
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 657
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Dutasteride, minoxidil, ketokonazole, dermarolling.

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Pat » 1 week ago

Xexos wrote:
1 week ago
When i said that you said "intelligence is worthless" in certain environments i meant that you said humans' "immense intelligence" is worthless, not intelligence in general. You did refer to it as "immense intelligence", but i didn't, that's all. But i know that you didn't mean that intelligence is worthless overall because we're talking about humans.
Please be specific because in the way you wrote it you made a strawman that didn't at all represent my views.
Xexos wrote:
1 week ago
And the question that you never answered or even bothered to answer

What's the mechanism that changes females attraction that quickly since it should be rooted in their genetics and genetics rarely change unless mutation happens.
Still you didn't answer how the mechanism of attraction changed rapidly when it's rooted in genetics.
Can you please again answer my question and help me understand how the female attraction mechanism work and how does it change rapidly despite it being completely genetic and genetics only change through mutations ?

Asked three times and not even one fucking answer, biology my ass.
I answered this question here.
Pat wrote:
1 week ago
The attraction hasn't changed rapidly. Neanderthals lived 400k years ago. Females attraction has been pretty consistent since documented time.
Xexos wrote:
1 week ago
Look Patrick, you've been getting angry for nothing in this debate and calling me things like "your comprehension is awful", "You're talking in circles", "Your long cringy rants", "Your complete lack of understanding and mistakes"

And this has two reasons actually, first, you consider evolution as a belief or a religion, you get angry for it just like when a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew get angry when you attack or criticize their religion. Or you try to draw the attention away from the important parts and play with words and use your great ability to mock others to sound like you're the winner in this discussion or that i'm not even worth debating with, but you could have ended the debate from the last page by answering my questions or pointing out my mistakes (not my mistake with words), and that would be it.
The reason I've been getting more hostile as this debate has gone on is because you consistently misrepresent me. It's not ideological. So the second paragraph seems to be you projecting.
Xexos wrote:
1 week ago
I sent you a PM few months ago and you never even replied to it, you just said :

"I read your other PM, thanks for sending it my way aswell. It's a lot of stuff in there and I think I've got to read it twice, but don't have time for that right now. I think it's better if I get back to you when I've really digested it."

And you didn't replay back since then or anything, i also wonder why didn't you mock me for it like you mock me here, maybe because there weren't any people who could be able to see our debate ? :thinking:
How did I never even reply to it when you're posting a private message quote by me? I don't care if you post it by the way. But it's cheap. The reason I didn't get back to you was because it was a lot for me to read, and I didn't feel like doing it at the time. I guess I got lazy, sorry.
Once again I wouldn't mock you if you didn't misrepresent me like you're doing in the above quote aswell.
Xexos wrote:
1 week ago
And i'm just gonna say it, evolution is a dumb retarded theory full of plot holes from the point LUCA existed and it's not possible and violates many laws like the the second law of thermodynamics.

I almost forgot anything about this shit-tier theory because i studied it like 2 years ago and i don't think i'd bother to study it again because it's clear to me that it's bullshit.
How does LUCA and especially the second law of thermodynamics contradict evolution? The second law of thermodynamics explains that heat will transfer from a hot element to a cold one.
Xexos wrote:
1 week ago
But still, i have this document i made that contains all the bullshit this theory has with evidences, maybe if you care about the truth give it a try, but i doubt you do or you'd.

So i'm ending this debate here and "my cringy rants" because there's no reason to continue, but i'll upload the document if anyone needs it to know better about the shitty world he lives in.

Document number 1, evolution mechanisms, human fossils, crimes committed because of the theory of evolution (yeah i know there are grammatical errors because that was like 2 years ago) :
I'm not reading a 23 page document. Can you post cliffnotes? I'm sorry as I have explained earlier I have a horrible attention span.

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 255
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 332
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Minoxidil 5% once ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week ..
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 1 week ago

Pat wrote:
1 week ago
Please be specific because in the way you wrote it you made a strawman that didn't at all represent my views.


I answered this question here.



The reason I've been getting more hostile as this debate has gone on is because you consistently misrepresent me. It's not ideological. So the second paragraph seems to be you projecting.


How did I never even reply to it when you're posting a private message quote by me? I don't care if you post it by the way. But it's cheap. The reason I didn't get back to you was because it was a lot for me to read, and I didn't feel like doing it at the time. I guess I got lazy, sorry.
Once again I wouldn't mock you if you didn't misrepresent me like you're doing in the above quote aswell.


How does LUCA and especially the second law of thermodynamics contradict evolution? The second law of thermodynamics explains that heat will transfer from a hot element to a cold one.


I'm not reading a 23 page document. Can you post cliffnotes? I'm sorry as I have explained earlier I have a horrible attention span.
No you didn't answer anything, i said HOW did it change, and i already said that 400 thousands years are nothing compared to the age of humanity.

You should just correct me instead of disrespecting me, i'd appreciate having my wrong info and mistakes corrected, but i'd not like being in a debate where i'm mocked.

What i posted wasn't doxxing in anyways though as it didn't contain any personal info about you or anything that other people shouldn't see. And it's not like i did secretly behind your back, i literally quoted you when i posted it. You're not sorry for being lazy though, i understand that sometimes we forget about such stuff. I just was angry because of the mocking and ignorantly posted that, so i'm the one who's sorry if you feel offended somehow.

About the second law of thermodynamics, entropy basically says the universe is breaking down and that things are deteriorating over time, which obviously contradicts evolution, the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

I'm sorry i can't cliffnotes to be honest, but it contains many important questions and answers regarding evolution. You don't have to read at once, maybe 5 pages a day or something and then have another discussion with me so we can see the mistakes it has and your honest opinion on it, which i'd appreciate.

I also have a trash attention span, as well as a shitty memory.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1070
Joined: 9 months ago
Reputation: 2672
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 6 days ago

Xexos wrote:
1 week ago
About the second law of thermodynamics, entropy basically says the universe is breaking down and that things are deteriorating over time, which obviously contradicts evolution, the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.
Not quite.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease over time. In thermodynamics, entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the number of micro states that the system can have, so it's actually a fairly complex thing. It turns out that it's often approximately proportional to the number of particles.

The Earth is not a closed system. It's an open system at both ends: energy can come in, and energy can go out. The dayside of the Earth receives energy from the Sun in ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared wavelengths; and the nightside of the Earth releases some of that energy at mid-infrared wavelengths. This constant cycling of energy enables an incredible range of both exothermic and endothermic reactions, which also requires the Earth to have a complex chemistry.

The most important entropy increase in the solar system is in the Sun. When 4 hydrogen nucleons fuse to form a helium nucleon, they also release some neutrinos and photons. As the photons make it out of the Sun they scatter countless times, and thus this energy effectively comes out as ~10,000 lower energy photons. The increase in particles approximately corresponds to an increase in entropy.

What happens on Earth is a minor perturbation to the total entropy calculation of the solar system.

But it still matters. Overall, evolution increases entropy. What you're doing in assuming that it decreases entropy is that you're ignoring the energy that goes in and out of cells. Once you account for that energy flow -- and respiration and metabolism are part of the definition of life -- you end up with an increasing entropy.

Your human body, for example, consumes ~2,500 calories a day, on average. The energy comes in through Twinkies, marshmallows, Coca Cola, etc. It comes out mostly in photons with a peak wavelength near ~20,000 nanometers, or 20 micrometers, or 0.02 millimeters. That's a lot of photons (every single day), it's a lot of particles, which increases the total number of states of that system. Those particles are part of the calculation as well.

This was one of my college textbooks for thermodynamics. I found it to be well-written and very enjoyable, it's one of my favorite books actually:

Image

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 255
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 332
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Minoxidil 5% once ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week ..
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 6 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 days ago
Not quite.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease over time. In thermodynamics, entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the number of micro states that the system can have, so it's actually a fairly complex thing. It turns out that it's often approximately proportional to the number of particles.

The Earth is not a closed system. It's an open system at both ends: energy can come in, and energy can go out. The dayside of the Earth receives energy from the Sun in ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared wavelengths; and the nightside of the Earth releases some of that energy at mid-infrared wavelengths. This constant cycling of energy enables an incredible range of both exothermic and endothermic reactions, which also requires the Earth to have a complex chemistry.

The most important entropy increase in the solar system is in the Sun. When 4 hydrogen nucleons fuse to form a helium nucleon, they also release some neutrinos and photons. As the photons make it out of the Sun they scatter countless times, and thus this energy effectively comes out as ~10,000 lower energy photons. The increase in particles approximately corresponds to an increase in entropy.

What happens on Earth is a minor perturbation to the total entropy calculation of the solar system.

But it still matters. Overall, evolution increases entropy. What you're doing in assuming that it decreases entropy is that you're ignoring the energy that goes in and out of cells. Once you account for that energy flow -- and respiration and metabolism are part of the definition of life -- you end up with an increasing entropy.

Your human body, for example, consumes ~2,500 calories a day, on average. The energy comes in through Twinkies, marshmallows, Coca Cola, etc. It comes out mostly in photons with a peak wavelength near ~20,000 nanometers, or 20 micrometers, or 0.02 millimeters. That's a lot of photons (every single day), it's a lot of particles, which increases the total number of states of that system. Those particles are part of the calculation as well.

This was one of my college textbooks for thermodynamics. I found it to be well-written and very enjoyable, it's one of my favorite books actually:

Image
Thanks for clarification and for this book.

I've known about the second law of thermodynamics fairly recently actually and i've seen multiple people using it as an argument against evolution, but i didn't know about the energy thing.

I believe i've not listed this argument in my document.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1070
Joined: 9 months ago
Reputation: 2672
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 4 days ago

Xexos wrote:
6 days ago
Thanks for clarification and for this book.

I've known about the second law of thermodynamics fairly recently actually and i've seen multiple people using it as an argument against evolution, but i didn't know about the energy thing.

I believe i've not listed this argument in my document.
The textbook above is actually a second or third year undergraduate textbook. I don't know what you're studying in university, but if you're a first year science student then you're not yet ready. You can try in a year or two.

A more interesting and relevant book on the topic of evolution would be The Naked Ape:
Image
I don't know how well the specific arguments hold up, but it does go through a lot of evolutionary thinking. On the subject of human beings, a primary driver of evolution in the last couple million years has been climate change, and the transitions to and from ice ages. Every time an ice age starts or ends, the food supply changes, and humans have had to adapt which have led to a variety of pressures and selection effects over time.

[Nota Bene: Geological climate change can happen on timescales of ~50,000 years due to "Milankovitch cycles". The Earth doesn't maintain a constant distance from the Sun, but it oscillates slowly, as orbital energy and angular momentum are transferred back and forth between the different planets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles]

One aspect noted by the author is that when humans were pushed out of the forests due to a past climate change events, our ancestors then had to compete with "cats and dogs" for food. But we are mostly inferior to lions, panthers, wolves, etc when it comes to gathering food. In order to adapt, we had to develop stronger communities, because humans can be more effective in groups. This led to the growth of the human brain over a couple million years. In other words, there was a synergy between sexuality (which helps form communities), brain growth, and eating meat. Those three features were in a positive feedback loop.

Eating meat is optical for brain growth, and we need larger brains in order to compete with other animals for meat.

The author argues that humans are the naked ape -- that we're the only primates without body hair -- in part because direct skin-to-skin contact improves sex, and sex is important to form communities, and forming communities is essential to human survival. Isolated human individuals are simply not effective at competing with other animals for resources, but human communities are. The author then argues that many of the differences between humans and other apes can be related to sexuality.

Another interesting feature that is discussed is our sensory capacity. Humans are primarily visual creatures, which is not a universal feature of the animal kingdom. From what I recall, approximately one third of the human brain is dedicated to processing vision. That relates to a lot of things, a lot of which I don't remember, but I think that among them is the fact that we are between 1.00 and 2.00 meters of height, and at that height, vision is exceptionally informative. If we were much shorter, we might rely on smell and sound more.

The evolution of life on Earth is a very interesting story. There definitely was some evolution, it's one of the most provable statements out there. What is missing, is not "an alternative" to evolution, there is no need for that as there is no need for an alternative to gravity. However, many details are missing, and remain to be interpreted. Among them:

- Whether or not life started on Earth, or was seeded by interstellar matter, as argued by many;
- Why male-female reproduction is dominant. We understand why sexual reproduction dominates over asexual reproduction -- the mixing of genes enables the improvement of genes. But in principle, female-female reproduction was a viable alternative, and it did not happen.
- How speciation happens. As it is, virtually all humans have 46 chromosomes, and those that do not are severely sick. Yet at some point, the number of chromosomes did change in the past, and in principle, it can change in the future.
- The role of bacteria in driving animal behaviour and phenotypes.
- The mapping of gene-environment interactions and epigenetic effects. For example, there's now evidence that if your grandfather went through a lot of trauma, that would suppress or enhance activity in some of his genes, and then you'd be effected by that trauma. Thirty years ago, that would have been dismissed as ludicrous.
- Various geological problems. For example, it is a certainty that the Sun was substantially less bright ~3 billion years ago, as most stars grow slightly more luminous over time. The Earth should have been a snowball. Yet, we know that the Earth's biosphere was vibrant, how? One possibility is that the Earth was closer to the Sun at that time. Another is that it had a lot more carbon dioxide and methane, and thus a much stronger greenhouse effect.

There are other problems that one can look into. Within the next fifty years, astronomers will be able to point telescopes toward "Earth-like" planets within ~100 light years of here and see if their atmospheres contain evidence of life such as ozone, oxygen, methane, etc, I forget what else. That, however, only tells you if there's bacteria there. I have no idea how we'd transition from saying "this planet has bacteria" to "this planet has complex, multi-cellular life", let alone intelligent life.

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 255
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 332
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Minoxidil 5% once ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week ..
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 4 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
4 days ago
The textbook above is actually a second or third year undergraduate textbook. I don't know what you're studying in university, but if you're a first year science student then you're not yet ready. You can try in a year or two.

A more interesting and relevant book on the topic of evolution would be The Naked Ape:
Image
I don't know how well the specific arguments hold up, but it does go through a lot of evolutionary thinking. On the subject of human beings, a primary driver of evolution in the last couple million years has been climate change, and the transitions to and from ice ages. Every time an ice age starts or ends, the food supply changes, and humans have had to adapt which have led to a variety of pressures and selection effects over time.

[Nota Bene: Geological climate change can happen on timescales of ~50,000 years due to "Milankovitch cycles". The Earth doesn't maintain a constant distance from the Sun, but it oscillates slowly, as orbital energy and angular momentum are transferred back and forth between the different planets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles]

One aspect noted by the author is that when humans were pushed out of the forests due to a past climate change events, our ancestors then had to compete with "cats and dogs" for food. But we are mostly inferior to lions, panthers, wolves, etc when it comes to gathering food. In order to adapt, we had to develop stronger communities, because humans can be more effective in groups. This led to the growth of the human brain over a couple million years. In other words, there was a synergy between sexuality (which helps form communities), brain growth, and eating meat. Those three features were in a positive feedback loop.

Eating meat is optical for brain growth, and we need larger brains in order to compete with other animals for meat.

The author argues that humans are the naked ape -- that we're the only primates without body hair -- in part because direct skin-to-skin contact improves sex, and sex is important to form communities, and forming communities is essential to human survival. Isolated human individuals are simply not effective at competing with other animals for resources, but human communities are. The author then argues that many of the differences between humans and other apes can be related to sexuality.

Another interesting feature that is discussed is our sensory capacity. Humans are primarily visual creatures, which is not a universal feature of the animal kingdom. From what I recall, approximately one third of the human brain is dedicated to processing vision. That relates to a lot of things, a lot of which I don't remember, but I think that among them is the fact that we are between 1.00 and 2.00 meters of height, and at that height, vision is exceptionally informative. If we were much shorter, we might rely on smell and sound more.

The evolution of life on Earth is a very interesting story. There definitely was some evolution, it's one of the most provable statements out there. What is missing, is not "an alternative" to evolution, there is no need for that as there is no need for an alternative to gravity. However, many details are missing, and remain to be interpreted. Among them:

- Whether or not life started on Earth, or was seeded by interstellar matter, as argued by many;
- Why male-female reproduction is dominant. We understand why sexual reproduction dominates over asexual reproduction -- the mixing of genes enables the improvement of genes. But in principle, female-female reproduction was a viable alternative, and it did not happen.
- How speciation happens. As it is, virtually all humans have 46 chromosomes, and those that do not are severely sick. Yet at some point, the number of chromosomes did change in the past, and in principle, it can change in the future.
- The role of bacteria in driving animal behaviour and phenotypes.
- The mapping of gene-environment interactions and epigenetic effects. For example, there's now evidence that if your grandfather went through a lot of trauma, that would suppress or enhance activity in some of his genes, and then you'd be effected by that trauma. Thirty years ago, that would have been dismissed as ludicrous.
- Various geological problems. For example, it is a certainty that the Sun was substantially less bright ~3 billion years ago, as most stars grow slightly more luminous over time. The Earth should have been a snowball. Yet, we know that the Earth's biosphere was vibrant, how? One possibility is that the Earth was closer to the Sun at that time. Another is that it had a lot more carbon dioxide and methane, and thus a much stronger greenhouse effect.

There are other problems that one can look into. Within the next fifty years, astronomers will be able to point telescopes toward "Earth-like" planets within ~100 light years of here and see if their atmospheres contain evidence of life such as ozone, oxygen, methane, etc, I forget what else. That, however, only tells you if there's bacteria there. I have no idea how we'd transition from saying "this planet has bacteria" to "this planet has complex, multi-cellular life", let alone intelligent life.
Dude, i'm neither gonna believe in Evolution nor The Big Bang even after millions of years.


Because, well, they're mathematically impossible if you take a look at them from an objective view outside the brainwashing that dumb Goyim receive since they're little kids.

We're not living in a fantasy or an anime for me to believe this bullshit that's actually harder to believe and require more faith than believing in God due to the extreme amount of coincidences and absurdism it has. Even scientists themselves don't know necessary info yet about these theories and they've existed for hundreds of years.

It's actually funnier when i see religious people pushing Evolution down my throat when they're not supposed to believe in it themselves.

But truth is, they don't care about what i believe in as long as i leave Islam and give up my "lunatic" conspiracy theories.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Xexos and 3 guests