aManFromMars:

Lol. Need tissue?

I'm just alarmed at the unbridled hypocrisy going on on this thread.

Joshthefirst: I sense a troll.


Why can you only make epileptic arguments. I don't even know why DS and others bother to reply you sometimes.

cry......cry......let me taste your butthurt

Cheers01:


cry......cry......let me taste your butthurt

you're deceiving yourself if you think I butthurt. You are the guys who most probably tear your entrails out in butthurt over any issue on God. Dem send una?

Cheers01:

If one examines josh's butt(FSM forbid ), one would notice craters and craters of butt hurt, some deep as the Grand Canyon.

Joshthefirst: I'm just alarmed at the unbridled hypocrisy going on on this thread.

DeepSight's posers do not demand answers, but rather speculations. He loves to play with his thoughts, unfortunately plaet, lb, eb et al don't have time for such. Lol.

plaetton:

If one examines josh's butt(FSM forbid ), one would notice craters and craters of butt hurt, some deep as the Grand Canyon.

Lolz. Come on man, be fair, that's where his brain resides.

aManFromMars:
DeepSight's posers do not demand answers, but rather speculations. He loves to play with his thoughts, unfortunately plaet, lb, eb et al don't have time for such. Lol.

sorry, but can't you see why the others just dodged and dodged and brought in countermeasures and ran away? Its because the questions would cause them to think.

Plaetton on the other hand went ahead and gave some form of answers that ridiculed his position and automatically made him a disgrace to evolutionists worldwide. I was appalled and striken by his ignorant words at first, but in the end, I'm not surprised.


Today, plaetton has done great harm to his position and discouraged aspirers who used to somewhat listen to his opinion. he should refrain from posting anything concerning evolution anymore. Or he should be sedated by his ogas before he does any other major damage to their reputations.

Joshthefirst: sorry, but can't you see why the others just dodged and dodged and brought in countermeasures and ran away? Its because the questions would cause them to think.

Plaetton on the other hand went ahead and gave some form of answers that ridiculed his position and automatically made him a disgrace to evolutionists worldwide. I was appalled and striken by his ignorant words at first, but in the end, I'm not surprised.


Today, plaetton has done great harm to his position and discouraged aspirers who used to somewhat listen to his opinion. he should refrain from posting anything concerning evolution anymore. Or he should be sedated by his ogas before he does any other major damage to their reputations.

You finally made me laugh today.

Tehehehehe. Josh is like the parrot playing chess with Kasparov...

But the parrot pigeon always wins.

Joshthefirst: sorry, but can't you see why the others just dodged and dodged and brought in countermeasures and ran away? Its because the questions would cause them to think.

Plaetton on the other hand went ahead and gave some form of answers that ridiculed his position and automatically made him a disgrace to evolutionists worldwide. I was appalled and striken by his ignorant words at first, but in the end, I'm not surprised.


Today, plaetton has done great harm to his position and discouraged aspirers who used to somewhat listen to his opinion. he should refrain from posting anything concerning evolution anymore. Or he should be sedated by his ogas before he does any other major damage to their reputations.

Dodged ke?

Wait, are you actually saying that I didnt address his op head on on this thread? When did you start telling such blatant lies? I wrote an epistle on the op.

Logicboy03:


Dodged ke?

Wait, are you actually saying that I didnt address his op head on on this thread? When did you start telling such blatant lies? I wrote an epistle on the op.

shift abeg. All of you here have proven that you are jokers. I don't need to argue or talk anymore. You've also proven that something is chronically wrong with your thinking. The same syndrome of blindness affecting all. Hypocrisy and dogma are your problem.

Claiming to be skeptical adherents of science but swallowing foolishly all you hear from men without stopping to think and question. Creating your own authority with speculation of men as its basis.

Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit

How can one speak reasonably with a person like this who does the very thing he accuses others of?

I wonder why DS didn't just ignore your ramblings.

Joshthefirst:

Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit

Superbly said.

I wonder why DS didn't just ignore your ramblings.

For the sake of posterity; for the sake of tomorrow.

[b][/b]

Joshthefirst: shift abeg. All of you here have proven that you are jokers. I don't need to argue or talk anymore. You've also proven that something is chronically wrong with your thinking. The same syndrome of blindness affecting all. Hypocrisy and dogma are your problem.

Claiming to be skeptical adherents of science but swallowing foolishly all you hear from men without stopping to think and question. Creating your own authority with speculation of men as its basis.

Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit

How can one speak reasonably with a person like this who does the very thing he accuses others of?

I wonder why DS didn't just ignore your ramblings.

The thing that pains me is that Deepsight would accept evolution when pushed in a corner but Ihe thinks that they are on the same creationist page.

Would i BE rite in assuming that the OP means The Theory of Evolution By NATURAL SELECTION when he just say the theory of evolution.

There is other theory of evolution, some even b4 darwin (or is it dawkins).

Theory of Evolution by existential forms.

@ Evil Brain, I must point out a few things to you, but first some comments on this post -

Evil Brain:

Nonsense. Darwin didn't write any ignorant diatribes against the evolution of sëxual reproduction or any another topic. He was an extremely serious scientist, and when he set out to debunk a theory, you could bet your āss that he'd first learn everything there was to know about it before opening his mouth in public. If you don't believe, read his Descent of Man and see the way he tore the ynashes those who claimed that white people were a seperate, higher species than blacks and other “savages".

If you want to disprove a theory, you first have to learn what the theory actually is, how it was arrived at, and what its recognized flaws are. Yet from his very first post, he has revealed his almost total ignorance of the topic, to the point that he was actually quoting Wikipedia (lol!) as proof that evolution is flawed!

It is most irritating to see scientific pretenders to seriousness always use this line. I mean the "you-must-not-refer-to-Wikipedia-or-you-are-not-a-serious-discussant" line. It is most irritating for the following reasons ->

1. Wikipedia is a perfectly handy and immediately accessible on-line resource

2. Wikipedia articles on academic issues are open to challenge and correction by experts all over the world and this reinforces the reliability of many of the academic articles on that site.

3. Wikipedia Articles on academic matters cite expert resources, research work, and peer reviewed scientific papers as authorities for virtually every statement made, with footnotes as links to such resources.

4. Wikipedia Articles which contain statements without references or authorities or confirmation are clearly marked "not confirmed", "needs review," "needs clean up", "needs verification" etc.

5. Each time a person edits or changes information on a Wikipedia Article, such a change is not submitted into the global server directly, it goes into a process to be checked before that is done. As such, that person will see the change on his own computer, but others will not, until it is globally loaded.

6. You can create a topic about yourself on Wikipedia, and no one may bother to challenge it because no one knows you or cares anyway. However you cannot create or edit a major and significant academic or scientific topic on Wikipedia (such as on the Big-Bang or on Evolution) WITHOUT having such triple checked and challenged by hundreds of academic experts all over the world. This is a fact.

7. This is Nairaland: not a university hall where a doctorate thesis is being defended: it is thus a board for casual discussion: there cannot be anything wrong in making such a reference in casual discussions.

8. Whether I source information from Wikipedia, Harvard university, or my pit latrine: the chief consideration should be if the information is correct; and not mere derision that it came from Wikipedia or my pit latrine. If my pit latrine is able to provide solid academic authorities for the information it presents, what then can you say? The Wikipedia article I cited provided solid references and authorities for their statements. Indeed, where they stated that there is scientific controversy in some areas, it is exactly because there are in circulation conflicting ideas on these matters. Or is that false?

For these reasons your mockery on account of Wikipedia references is misjudged, ill-thought out and completely out of place. It is also presumptuous.

What deep sight is doing is like trying to prove that elephants don't exist without ever seeing a picture of one, or even having a clue what they look like. If you do that on a public forum, then other people are going to reply and make you look stupîd.

He only has himself to blame.

I am not interested in your thoughts on my apparent stu.pidity: you may not be familiar with me but I am notoriously thick skinned in that regard: I do not post on this board with any interest in anybody's perception of my intelligence or st.upidity or both: I do not earn my livelihood based on such; and if I ever gave a hoot, I would not open half the threads I have opened, for I am almost all the time on the other side of conventional wisdom, thinking, or science. That would not be the case if I gave a hoot about validation from any Tom, D1ck or Harry.

What I would however wish to point out to you is this.

1. You have NOT made any response whatsoever to the issues raised. All you did was mention a few well known biological terms and wonder if the writer of the OP had acquainted himself with those terms and conclude (without knowing) that the writer had not, and was therefore not competent to raise the queries. This is all that you did: nothing more and nothing less. You did not, and you have not in anyway addressed anything raised whatsoever. However I concede to you that choosing not to address the issues is of course your prerogative, and you may not have the time or interest in such, especially where you have concluded that it is just ignorance.

AND VERY IMPORTANTLY:

2. You have inferred by your statements that only one who is ignorant of the scientific answers to these posers, would raise such posers. This is very very wrong and very very false. It is very wrong and false for the exact reason that these posers are indeed raised and hotly debated by the very best experts in the fields of microbiology and neurobiology, professors and people with doctoral degrees in these sciences from the best universities in the world.

Your suggestion is that one who is acquainted with the science of the matter would not raise such posers: this is clearly false: for these same posers are raised by the most knowledgeable scientists in the relevant fields.

This shows that the posers are not mis-footed: and also that raising them is not an ignorant thing to do, but a legitimate line of inquiry and debate, however you choose to delude yourself to the contrary. In your very mis-footed presumptuousness, you not only missed this fact, but were so presumptuous as to conclude immediately that I am a born again Christian. This shows just how thoughtless, careless and presumptuous you are in your thinking.

I posted an article in which two PHD microbiologists/ neurobiologists made contentions against evolution based on the same posers I raised here. I will just leave you with a list of their references to other scientists, and anyone can see whether or not these guys are ignorant, or whether they have not considered all the available theories and arguments on the matter, before raising same posers -

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Bell, Graham, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 19, 1982.
[2] Bell, Ref. 1, p. 54.
[3] Ridley, Mark, The Cooperative Gene, The Free Press, New York, pp. 108,111, 2001.
[4] Schecter, Julie, How Did Sex Come About?, Bioscience, 34:680, December 1984.
[5] Crow, J.F., The Importance of Recombination, The Evolution of Sex: An Examination of Current Ideas, ed. Michod and Levin, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, p. 35, 1988. /
[6] Crow, Ref. 5. /
[7] Eldredgen Niles and Joel. Cracraft, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology, Columbia Universiy Press, New York, p.102, 1980. /
[8] Ridley, Ref. 3, p. 254. /
[9] Maddox, John, What Remains to be Discovered, The Free Press, New York, p. 252, 1998. /
[10] Crow, Ref. 5, p. 60. /
[11] Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Francisco J. Ayala, G. Ledyard Stebbins, and James W. Valentine, Evolution, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, p. 391, 1977. /
[12] Williams, George C., Sex and Evolution: in the Monographs in Population Biology series, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975. /
[13] Zimmer, Carl, Parasite Rex, The Free Press, New York, p. 163, 2000. /
[14] Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen Viking, London, p. 254, 1993. /
[15] Reichenbach, Bruce and V. Elving Anderson, On Behalf of God, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 18. /
[16] Zimmer, Carl, Ref. 10, p. 163. /
[17] Cartwright, John, Evolution and Human Behavior, Macmillan, London, p. 96, 2000. /
[18] Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, p. 87, 1977. /
[19] Van Valen, Leigh, A New Evolutionary Law, Evolutionary Theory, 1:1-30, 1973. /
[20] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 97. /
[21] Bernstein, H., F.A. Hopf, and R.E. Michod, The Evolution of Sex: DNA Repair Hypothesis, The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies, ed. C. Rasa and E. Voland, Chapman and Hall, London, p. 4, 1989. /
[22] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 98. /
[23] Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen, Viking, London, 1993. /
[24] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[25] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[26] Ridley, Mark, Ref. 3, p. 254. /
[27] Maddox, John, Ref. 6, p. 252. /
[28] Maddox, Ref. 6, p. 253. /
[29] Ridley, Ref. 3, p. 109. /
[30] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[31] Zimmer, Carl, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, HarperCollins, New York, pp. 230, 231, 2001. /
[32] Ridley, Mark, Ref. 3, pp. 108-109. /
[33] Ward, Peter, Future Evolution, Henry Holt, New York, p. 153, 2001. /
[34] Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York, p. 98, 2001. /
[35] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 98. /
[36] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 98. /
[37] Crow, J.F., The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate: Is it a Health Risk?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94:8380-8386, 1997. /
[38] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 98. /
[39] Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, Genes, Peoples, and Languages, North Point Press, New York, p. 176, 2000. /
[40] Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Ref. 15, pp. 88,103,107. /
[41] Gould, Stephen Jay, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?, speech presented at Hobart College, February 14, 1980; as quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, CA, 1984. /
[42] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 103. /
[43] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 104. /
[44] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 291, 1997. /
[45] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Ref. 41, p. 293. /
[46] Ackerman, Jennifer, Chance in the House of Fate, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, pp. 48-49, 2001. /
[47] Ackerman, Jennifer, Ref. 43, p. 115. /
[48] Thomas, Lewis, The Medusa and the Snail, Viking, New York, pp. 155-157, 1979. /
[49] Hoffman, Banesh, Albert Einstein, New American Library, p. 73. /

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Discussed in the paper are various theories on the origin of se.xual reproduction, including the DNA Repair Hypothesis, the Red Queen Hypothesis, the Tangled Bank Hypothesis and the Lottery Principle - some of which I had already pointed your co-travelers on this thread to, with a link I posted for them, asking them to go through these theories and point out answers to my posers therein. It was a challenge which nobody took up.

With the above, it is obvious who is ignorantly grandstanding and make puerile assumptions.

Nuff said!

^^^^

All the epistle you can write in the world wont change the foolishness in the op you wrote.

Claiming that evolution is flawed because biologists note that they need to do more research the evolution of mammary glands.


You might as well say that space doesnt exist because scientist can not fully explain dark matter.


lol

Logicboy03: Deepsight getting schooled


Erm, here is a good advice for you, Deepsight

plaetton:
OMG!
Logicdude, you are lethal.
Where did you get this from?.
May I have your permission to reuse it here on Nl when the bullshyts threaten my senses?

Evil Brain: But the parrot pigeon always wins.

. . . . And it is just our motley group of eminently "enlightened" scientific thinkers, who cannot make a single response to the posers raised - who now spend their time on same thread posting these puerile laughable images in supposed mockery?

This was once reserved only for Olaadegbu.

Pitiful.

Logicboy03: ^^^^

All the epistle you can write in the world wont change the foolishness in the op you wrote.

Claiming that evolution is flawed because biologists note that they need to do more research the evolution of mammary glands.


You might as well say that space doesnt exist because scientist can not fully explain dark matter.


lol

Quite clear that you haven't read any of the articles, and are not even aware of any of the current theories on the matter, otherwise you would not make this s.illy comment.

PS: Besides, the "epistle" is directed specifically at the suggestion that only the ignorant would raise such posers.

Deep Sight:





. . . . And it is just our motley group of eminently "enlightened" scientific thinkers, who cannot make a single response to the posers raised - who now spend their time on same thread posting these puerile laughable images in supposed mockery?

This was once reserved only for Olaadegbu.

Pitiful.

False.

I answered your op head on.

Guy, you are reaping what you sowed.

Deep Sight:

Quite clear that you haven't read any of the articles, and are not even aware of any of the current theories on the matter, otherwise you would not make this s.illy comment.

What am I not aware of?

Pls inform me........I am interested to see how you lie your way out of this one

Logicboy03:



False.

I answered your op head on.

Guy, you are reaping what you sowed.

No my friend, you have not addressed anything. You wasted your time writing what you wrote. The OP it self was an introduction for a discussion. That's why it contained those extracts. You hardly needed to argue against those extracts because the extracts themselves as well as the pages they were culled from already made suggestions about possible answers and theories.

Besides, the answers you gave were non-answers. You pretty much said that mammary glands don't fossilize well and as such there would be no material to study, and then you went on to say that at all events the se.xes and se.xual reproduction arose from evolution, and even if the answers as to how so, were not available now, this nonetheless remains true and the answers would be found in the future.

How is this an argument? It is not. You have said nothing: and you have still missed the core issues giving rise to those extracts as an introduction to the discussion.

The posers which you need to address are contained in the list of 12 Questions which I laid out on the first page of this thread. THOSE are the posers for which the OP was an abstract intro. THOSE are the posers you need to address. I have pointed you back to them for guidance twice now, but, like the others, you're still scaredy catty. I even told you to take just the first two as a starting point, so that you could understand the real questions. But nothing.

It's okay.

Logicboy03:




What am I not aware of?

Pls inform me........I am interested to see how you lie your way out of this one

- - - >

Deep Sight: . . . . various theories on the origin of se.xual reproduction, including the DNA Repair Hypothesis, the Red Queen Hypothesis, the Tangled Bank Hypothesis and the Lottery Principle - some of which I had already pointed your co-travelers on this thread to. . .

Evil Brain:

Nonsense.

Aptly summarizes your response.

Evil Brain: Darwin didn't write any ignorant diatribes against the evolution of sëxual reproduction or any another topic. . . .

Reveals your bias; only a deluded person won't see it. Deep Sight's questions were germane, and problems like those Darwin considered could be used to object his theory_ problems still unsolved today. That is far from ignorant.

Evil Brain: If you want to disprove a theory, you first have to learn what the theory actually is, how it was arrived at, and what its recognized flaws are. . . .

And he starts with its flaws. Abiogenesis and vast swaths of aspects of evolution such as that of the brain, sexual reproduction even phylogeny remain unsolved. To pretend otherwise is pathetic and shows lack of objectivity. In the case of atheists LIKE YOU who scorn religious delusions, I say it's crass stüpidity for the hypocrisy involved.

aManFromMars:
DeepSight's posers do not demand answers, but rather speculations.

And that is why real life scientists among the best in the world are still wrangling with the very same posers?

He loves to play with his thoughts, unfortunately plaet, lb, eb et al don't have time for such. Lol.

But apparently real life PHD scientists and professors have lots of time for such!

Logicboy03: ^^^^

All the epistle you can write in the world wont change the foolishness in the op you wrote.

Claiming that evolution is flawed because biologists note that they need to do more research the evolution of mammary glands.


You might as well say that space doesnt exist because scientist can not fully explain dark matter.


lol

Trivia: Dark matter reminds me of the concept of aether. I suppose a cosmologist must have seen the similarities. One clear one is that like aether, dark matter was proposed after the fact that scientific data eg from measured galaxy rotation speeds contradicted predictions.

Uyi Iredia:

Aptly summarizes your response.



Reveals your bias; only a deluded person won't see it. Deep Sight's questions were germane, and problems like those Darwin considered could be used to object his theory_ problems still unsolved today. That is far from ignorant.




And he starts with its flaws. Abiogenesis and vast swaths of aspects of evolution such as that of the brain, sexual reproduction even phylogeny remain unsolved. To pretend otherwise is pathetic and shows lack of objectivity. In the case of atheists LIKE YOU who scorn religious delusions, I say it's crass stüpidity for the hypocrisy involved.

don't mind them. Jokers. They only gave the evolutionofthegaps reply to the questions, the only one who even attempted to give a reply and an explanation insulted his position and his reputation on this forum.

@ Deep Sight: Wikipedia are biased to a considerable extent. One easily gets the feeling they are liberals and easily pro-Western. A ready example of this bias in the case of evolution-creation: they don't balance both sides at all; in fact, they misrepresent creationists and ID'sts. Another possible one could be in the conservative-'progressive' divide: how they portray conservatives eg Limbaugh against liberals esp liberal democrats.

Uyi Iredia: @ Deep Sight: Wikipedia are biased to a considerable extent. One easily gets the feeling they are liberals and easily pro-Western. A ready example of this bias in the case of evolution-creation: they don't balance both sides at all; in fact, they misrepresent creationists and ID'sts. Another possible one could be in the conservative-'progressive' divide: how they portray conservatives eg Limbaugh against liberals esp liberal democrats.

Even where this is true (which I do not say it is) the points I listed for Evil Brain on the issue of referring to Wikipedia in such a discussion still remain valid: especially in an instance where a statement sourced from Wikipedia, is there because it has a reference from a credible academic journal or research work, which is listed as a footnote with a link and verifiable.

In reality therefore, the information is from that cited source - and not - "from Wikipedia"!

Wikipedia itself is not a source - that's the point here! - - - > it is therefore very ignorant and f.oolish for people like Evil Brain to sit back and say "lol, you are citing Wikipedia!"

Very f.oolish in this instance indeed!

Ogbologbo: Would i BE rite in assuming that the OP means The Theory of Evolution By NATURAL SELECTION when he just say the theory of evolution.
There is other theory of evolution, some even b4 darwin (or is it dawkins).
Theory of Evolution by existential forms.

A honest attempt at last to deal with the issue. The op himself having been asked many times just how his 'evolution'
works. Alas all we've gotten is more of his standard dross

Regardless though, this changes little. Hence his fear to defend his 'evolution'

Uyi Iredia:
And he starts with its flaws. Abiogenesis and vast swaths of aspects of evolution such as that of the brain, sexual reproduction even phylogeny remain unsolved. To pretend otherwise is pathetic and shows lack of objectivity. In the case of atheists LIKE YOU who scorn religious delusions, I say it's crass stüpidity for the hypocrisy involved.

This is a perfect example of the ignorance I was talking about. You calling abiogenesis a flaw in evolution exposes your lack of understanding of the premise of the theory.

Just for giggles, I'm not going to tell you what is wrong with what you said. Let me see if you can do some googling and figure it out yourself. I'll let you know when you're getting warm.

plaetton:

It shows that you are still wholly ignorant of how science works and evolves.

Making a logical and reasonable assumption on a subject while studying it is a tried and tested method of scientific discovery.

Science evolves, and have grown thus far because , just like the evolutionary process itself, science builds small bridges of knowledge one at a time.
And let me correct you: there no controversies in science. There are competing ideas, competing notions, competing approaches and competing theories all with same goal of arriving at the same truths. If scientists disagree on one aspect of a theory, that does not invalidate the basic underpinnings of that theory.

@ the bold - I have not said in any way that the basic underpinnings of the The Theory of Evolution have been invalidated. Indeed, if that were the case, I would outrightly declare that I wholly reject the theory. In contrast, I have said like a broken record that I subscribe to the Theory.

Therefore why do you insist on repeatedly writing such gibberish as this? Is it because you have nothing else to write? Or is it because the nonsense you wrote as your proposition has been exposed for what it is?

PS: In fact, to be clear, rather than argue that the basic underpinnings of the Theory of Evolution have been invalidated, this is what I said ->

Deep Sight . . . the genuine source of the controversies: is the fact that these phenomena are in reality completely outside the purview of the principles girding the Theory of Evolution! Natural selection and mutation of the sort advanced by the Theory of Evolution actually have no bearing whatsoever on these phenomena . . .

In short, that the ToE principles do not apply to these phenomena, and thus do not explain these phenomena. And so, other factors must.

Having reviewed that, tell me, why on earth will you deliberately and consistently misrepresent what I have been saying. So you may have a laugh?

Be serious.