Dapo777:


Ok So your point is?

.......................
An organism that is harmless today and becomes harmful tomorrow is also paradoxical(bear in mind that it now houses both attributes in one entity: before it was harmless but now it can chose either to be harmless or harmful depending on the kind of virus/organism/parasite it has become and the kind of environment it finds itself, E.g malaria parasite-----In mosquitoes the parasite is harmless but in humans it can cause harm)
If evolution is paradoxical and you believe in it then saying you don't believe in GOD because you are of the opinion that "GOD is paradoxical " makes you bias.

theunusualmoon:

.......................
An organism that is harmless today and becomes harmful tomorrow is also paradoxical(bear in mind that it now houses both attributes in one entity: before it was harmless but now it can chose either to be harmless or harmful depending on the kind of virus/organism/parasite it has become and the kind of environment it finds itself, E.g malaria parasite-----In mosquitoes the parasite is harmless but in humans it can cause harm)
If evolution is paradoxical and you believe in it then saying you don't believe in GOD because you are of the opinion that "GOD is paradoxical " makes you bias.

I don't believe you get What paradoxical means. The malaria parasite is in its early stage of development in the mosquito saliva. That doesn't mean it is harmless,it has the potential of being harmful,So its still harmful. Its like saying a caged tiger is harmless.

Please I need a Better analogy.

Dapo777:


I don't believe you get What paradoxical means. The malaria parasite is in its early stage of development in the mosquito saliva. That doesn't mean it is harmless,it has the potential of being harmful,So its still harmful. Its like saying a caged tiger is harmless.

Please I need a Better analogy.

..............
What I am telling you right there is that the parasite is not harmful to the mosquito but once it leaves that environment for "say" a humans blood stream it becomes harmful in its new environment.

theunusualmoon:

..............
What I am telling you right there is that the parasite is not harmful to the mosquito but once it leaves that environment for "say" a humans blood stream it becomes harmful overtime.

Its not harmful to the mosquito, its harmful to humans. That's not paradoxical
But If its harmful and not harmful at the same time to the same organism (human) then it becomes paradoxical

Dapo777:


I saw this coming.

Those things you call paradoxical are not paradoxical. They have scientific explanation for those things u call paradox.

Paradox is When we have two conflicting attributes in a single entity simultaneously. Like a square circle.

...............
Good night bro.The analogy may be a bit difficult for you to understand now but sleep over it and check it out again tomorrow morning.

theunusualmoon:


...............
Good night bro.The analogy may be a bit difficult for you to understand now but sleep over it and check it out again tomorrow morning.

Lol. I think you should get me a Better analogy because there is Nothing paradoxical about dat

plaetton:


Oh please!

What are the countries of prosperity do you see this same religion practiced in the manner it is practiced in Nigeria?

If you understand yourself very well you would have noticed the error in blaming religion. Just take a look at your quoted comment above. Maybe you still did not see it but I will show you.

Note the word 'manner' in your question. Their is a manner in which anything must be practiced and that manner is, almost every time, enshrined in the said thing. Once you suggest that anything is wrong because of the manner it is practised then you are already relieving that thing from the wrong this certain manner is providing. I don't know if you get that.

Let me go with the positive aspect. Once you also say that anything is good because of the manner it is practised you are automatically suggesting that that thing is good not because it is a good thing itself but because of the manner it is practised. A thing can only be practised by the very laws governing its practice.

If in human relation, it is in line with the tenets of a particular religion to treat people with care we cannot then blame that religion when a so-called adherent harm people. This is because that is not the mannerism of such a religion and thus blaming religion becomes irrational.

plaetton:

Our main concern here is why do we stubbornly refuse to let go when even those that brought the crap to us have relegated it to the realms myth ?

I disagree with you. Our main concern should rather be. If we are practising this religion as it is written why do we still lag behind when some of those who brought it to us are progressing?

plaetton:


I still cannot understand why an African adamantly believes that Jesus is real, died for him, loves him, and is coming back with his space rocket to take him to the darkside of the moon, while the jewish people whose forefathers witnessed the events of 1st century Palestine , say bullshyte.
If the Jews don't buy the crap, no African should be buying it this post-enlightenment era.

I think the problem here is that you have a myopic understanding of the African mind prior to the invasion by foreign powers. I will not blame you for that. Let me explain something to you.

You see, the mind of the African prior to the advent of the colonisers was open to development and highly inquisitive. This was replicated in his view for every aspect of life. I love to use my igbo brothers as an example. When he sees an opportunity to advance himself he doesn't hesitate to it. If he is practising anything and someone comes around to show him, by any means possible, that that which he is practising is inferior to what that person practises. My igbo brothers will first hesitate but still keep an eye on that offer. If it turns out, by experience, that the foreigners process works better he will immediately abondon his inferior practice to embrace that of the foreigner.

That is the tale of the african. The africans has to embrace the new religions because their old religion, after testing with the new, came out inferior. So, asking why we did that will be very myopic and even suggest that we are low level humans clinging unto an inferior practice because they are ours and shunning the superior practice because they are not from us.

Dapo777:


I am not in the right position to answer that question, whatever I give as an answer would only be speculative.

You surely know what to answer but may not know yet.

The thing is, if you don't know how they all started how then were you able to know that we may never get to witness any? You must be certain of the time they began to know that the movement from micro level to macro level in a certain organism is not experiencing any visible Evolution right now. You can ask for clarification.

Dapo777:
The British that brought religion to control us here in Africa a lot of them have abandoned their religion and are now focusing on scientific endeavour That's why they are developing faster than Nigeria the giant of Africa.

Technologically, the Chinese and Indians are developing much faster than the British, but they still have religion and "superstition".

The Japanese are religious, but are technologically developed.

The Germans are more superstitious than the British, at least more openly superstitious (the British hide it).

Religion and superstition do not obstruct technological development.

Nigerians are too interested in money to have a pure interest in science or philosophy. That is the problem.

In Europe many people pursue these things for academic interest only, and as hobbies.

Nigerians only pursue money, and by the quickest route, selling oil.

In Nigeria, even Christianity revolves around money.

Cultural change in Europe and Asia has come through philosophy.

Name an influential African philosopher if such a thing can be said to exist.

That is where you may wish to put your focus.

Dapo777:
Yes I am angry. At how religion has infiltrated this country to impede our development and cause serious intellectual laziness.

Chaiiiii.

Well, you are making a religion of science, too, which is intellectual laziness.

Tell me, what new observations of nature have you made for yourself -- something that you are not just repeating from what you have been told?

Reyginus:
You surely know what to answer but may not know yet.

The thing is, if you don't know how they all started how then were you able to know that we may never get to witness any? You must be certain of the time they began to know that the movement from micro level to macro level in a certain organism is not experiencing any visible Evolution right now. You can ask for clarification.

You have been saying senseless things now a days and I don't know why.
What is your reason for saying I must know the time something started before I can know that the movement of an event is not apparently visible. What sort of baseless conclusion is that.

So I must know the time,day month and year that evolution started before I can say that evolution isn't apparent on the macro level(in a short period)But micro level(in a short period of time) You are So clueless and confused. I thought you even understood my explanation But your statement "movement from micro level to macro level" shows that you Dnt even understand my explanation to even have a reasonable discussion with you. You were making sense When you emphasized that evolution is easily observed on a macro level over a very long period of time(millions) butt observable on a micro level over a short period of time(thousands of years) ,But for the same person to say "movement from micro level to macro level".makes me feel as If its not the same Reyginus that is making this ridiculous statement.

There is no such thing as movement from micro level to macro level,it is observed on the micro level over a short period of time and observed on a macro level over a long period. That's it. Nothing like movement from one level to another.

I find it difficult to accept that you are the same person who was making sense sense before to say "movement from micro to macro" .

sinequanon:


Well, you are making a religion of science, too, which is intellectual laziness.

Tell me, what new observations of nature have you made for yourself -- something that you are not just repeating from what you have been told?

So If I have made a new observation, it is you i will tell, So that you can plagiarize and call it your own work.
Olodo.

Dapo777:


So If I have made a new observation, it is you i will tell, So that you can plagiarize and call it your own work.
Olodo.

I don't know if that is supposed to be a joke..... if so, excuse me...ha ha ha...

If not, it sounds very disingenuous. There are millions of personal observations buzzing about the internet. Nobody is going to single out Dapo777 and take his seriously. I am not asking for some peer reviewed paper by Dapo777, mwahahahahaha! I am merely asking for an observation.

I can give you some examples of my own, after you give me an honest answer to my question.

sinequanon:


Technologically, the Chinese and Indians are developing much faster than the British, but they still have religion and "superstition".

The Japanese are religious, but are technologically developed.

The Germans are more superstitious than the British, at least more openly superstitious (the British hide it).

Religion and superstition do not obstruct technological development.

Nigerians are too interested in money to have a pure interest in science or philosophy. That is the problem.

In Europe many people pursue these things for academic interest only, and as hobbies.

Nigerians only pursue money, and by the quickest route, selling oil.

In Nigeria, even Christianity revolves around money.

Cultural change in Europe and Asia has come through philosophy.

Name an influential African philosopher if such a thing can be said to exist.

That is where you may wish to put your focus.

You don't get it.

I don't mean everyone in British are non religious.

I am talking about a significant amount of them aren't religious. 95% of Nigerians are religious and That's one of our problems. Those developed countries you are mentioning, Ofcourse there would be a massive amount of religious people there But also a significant amount of non religious people seeding their development.

Cappish?

sinequanon:


I don't know if that is supposed to be a joke..... if so, excuse me...ha ha ha...

If not, it sounds very disingenuous. There are millions of personal observations buzzing about the internet. Nobody is going to single out Dapo777 and take his seriously. I am not asking for some peer reviewed paper by Dapo777, mwahahahahaha! I am merely asking for an observation.

I can give you some examples of my own, after you give me an honest answer to my question.

Ok give me ur own observation, So that I can know What you are talking about.

Dapo777:


You don't get it.

I don't mean everyone in British are non religious.

I am talking about a significant amount of them aren't religious. 95% of Nigerians are religious and That's one of our problems. Those developed countries you are mentioning, Ofcourse there would be a massive amount of religious people there But also a significant amount of non religious people seeding their development.

Cappish?

I don't know when you carried out your census in Nigeria... but you should understand that Europe "seeded its development" in very religious times. I will not throw made up numbers around , as you are doing, but I suggest that the Europeans were no less religious. Many of their scientists were Christian or Muslim.

I would also suggest that, today, Indians are no less religious than Nigerians. It is just different religion.

If you add superstition into the mix, superstition funds a multi-million dollar industry in the US and Europe.

You have bought into a load of hype about the effect of religion on technological development.

I am not religious, myself, but I am not going to get things twisted just to support my perspective.

sinequanon:


I don't know when you carried out your census in Nigeria... but you should understand that Europe "seeded its development" in very religious times. I will throw made up numbers around , as you are doing, but I suggest that the Europeans were no less religious. Many of their scientists were Christian or Muslim.

I would also suggest that, today, Indians are no less religious than Nigerians. It is just different religion.

If you add superstition into the mix, superstition funds a multi-million dollar industry in the US and Europe.

You have bought into a load of hype about the effect of religion on technological development.

I am not religious, myself, but I am not going to get things twisted just to support my perspective.

Hahaha "superstition funds a multi million dollar industry in the us and Europe,So why is Nigeria not as rich as them?

Dapo777:


Ok give me ur own observation, So that I can know What you are talking about.

You know that there has been a shift in scientific thinking regarding the question of whether animals have intelligence, or even consciousness.

Over the last few decades, there has been a steady trickle of scientists finding "amazing" cases of intelligence in animals. They have also discovered stress and communication among plants.

But these things are only amazing to scientists. People, like myself, who take the time to observe creatures first hand in the wild already know much ofl this. The point is that this gives you a sense of the level of ignorance among the scientists who drive education.

There was once a BBC TV program about avian prey dropping behaviour. This is where a bird, like a crow or gull, deliberately drops a shellfish from height in order to break it open. The program, which was based in a some remote island in the Pacific, went into great detail about how the conditions on the island had led to the development of this "UNIQUE" behaviour, which is not observable anywhere else in the world. But the fact (known to birdwatchers) is that the behaviour is very common and had nothing to do with special conditions on the island. The birdwatchers are in a privileged position of being able to assess BS coming from the scientific community. I observed the behaviour first hand myself, just by being observant. And I have witnessed many examples of high levels of intelligence in birds.

I once watched a crow spot a starling carrying nesting material. The crow put two and two together, and tried to discover where the starlings nest was (crows eat eggs and hatchlings). It hid and waited for the starling to enter the nest. But the starling spotted the crow and "hung around" without giving away the location of the nest. The crow then pretended that it was doing something else and not paying attention. Then it flew behind a roof and watched carefully over the top. The starling wasn't fooled. Then the crow flew off for real, knowing that it was wasting its time. Now, that level of consciousness requires the "I know that you know that I know" capability. So, when I hear scientists try to understate the intelligence of animals, using anthropocentric experiments, I don't just swallow the evidence.

Dapo777:



Hahaha "superstition funds a multi million dollar industry in the us and Europe,So why is Nigeria not as rich as them?

It is a fact. I am not claiming that superstition generates real value. That may be your interpretation of what I am saying.

Superstition in the US and UK is a multi-million dollar industry that transfers money from one section of the community to another, much like tithing in Nigeria. My point is that you shouldn't single out Nigeria for these things.

sinequanon:


It is a fact. I am not claiming that superstition generates real value. That may be your interpretation of what I am saying.

Superstition in the US and UK is a multi-million dollar industry that transfers money from one section of the community to another, much like tithing in Nigeria. My point is that you shouldn't single out Nigeria for these things.

So What is the name of the superstition industry that is transferring money?

sinequanon:


You know that there has been a shift in scientific thinking regarding the question of whether animals have intelligence, or even consciousness.

Over the last few decades, there has been a steady trickle of scientists finding "amazing" cases of intelligence in animals. They have also discovered stress and communication among plants.

But these things are only amazing to scientists. People, like myself, who take the time to observe creatures first hand in the wild already know much ofl this. The point is that this gives you a sense of the level of ignorance among the scientists who drive education.

There was once a BBC TV program about avian prey dropping behaviour. This is where a bird, like a crow or gull, deliberately drops a shellfish from height in order to break it open. The program, which was based in a some remote island in the Pacific, went into great detail about how the conditions on the island had led to the development of this "UNIQUE" behaviour, which is not observable anywhere else in the world. But the fact (known to birdwatchers) is that the behaviour is very common and had nothing to do with special conditions on the island. The birdwatchers are in a privileged position of being able to assess BS coming from the scientific community. I observed the behaviour first hand myself, just by being observant. And I have witnessed many examples of high levels of intelligence in birds.

I once watched a crow spot a starling carrying nesting material. The crow put two and two together, and tried to discover where the starlings nest was (crows eat eggs and hatchlings). It hid and waited for the starling to enter the nest. But the starling spotted the crow and "hung around" without giving away the location of the nest. The crow then pretended that it was doing something else and not paying attention. Then it flew behind a roof and watched carefully over the top. The starling wasn't fooled. Then the crow flew off for real, knowing that it was wasting its time. Now, that level of consciousness requires the "I know that you know that I know" capability. So, when I hear scientists try to understate the intelligence of animals, using anthropocentric experiments, I don't just swallow the evidence.

And What makes you think your observation has not been made by another person before?

Don't you watch Nat Geo wild? A lot of things like What you just described as animal having intelligence is seen in documentary. What's new about your discovery?

Dapo777:


So What is the name of the superstition industry that is transferring money?

You don't understand?

Take, for instance, mediums, tarot card readers, palm readers... etc etc.

Their industry has a multi-million dollar turnover.

This is a fact, but you wouldn't guess by talking to people. Because superstition has become so taboo that people generally have to sneak out to access these "services". In public they mock it or pretend that it is just for fun.

The police in the UK also use mediums, but deny it (obviously). Admitting such would undermine their credibility in court.

All I am saying is that the main difference between Nigeria and the West is that Nigerians do a lot of these things openly.

Dapo777:


And What makes you think your observation has not been made by another person before?

Don't you watch Nat Geo wild? A lot of things like What you just described as animal having intelligence is seen in documentary. What's new about your discovery?

Fair enough. By "new", I only mean something that you discovered independently.

I am just curious, because I think it is important to have a level of independent observation in order to critically appraise scientific claims in general (not just regurgitate from the media).

Take a rainbow, for example. How much do you know from observation (not after the fact of reading).

Did you discover on your own..

That when you face the middle of a rainbow, the Sun will be directly behind you?

That sometimes you get a double rainbow, and the outside one is inside out (red on the inside)?

That many rainbows have more than six or seven stripes (some of the inner colours repeat)?

etc.

I mean, a rainbow is a familiar thing. How often did your own observation kick in, and how successful were you in noticing these things before reading about them?

sinequanon:


You don't understand?

Take, for instance, mediums, tarot card readers, palm readers... etc etc.

Their industry has a multi-million dollar turnover.

This is a fact, but you wouldn't guess by talking to people. Because superstition has become so taboo that people generally have to sneak out to access these "services". In public the mock it or pretend that it is just for fun.

The police in the UK also use mediums, but deny it (obviously). Admitting such would undermine their credibility in court.

All I am saying is that the main difference between Nigeria and the West is that Nigerians do a lot of these things openly.

True.
But that doesn't make superstition an industry.
Its just a way of exploiting the ignorant.

Dapo777:


True.
But that doesn't make superstition an industry.
Its just a way of exploiting the ignorant.

Semantics. The point stands -- the "goings on" are equivalent to what happens in Naija.

The term industry can apply (without the connotations that may be giving you reservations).

By the way, I gave the revenue off the top of my head. This report is quoting BILLIONS...

http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/psychic-services.html

IBISWorld’s Psychic Services market research report can be used to help you: understand market size and growth potential; major companies; draft business plans and pitch books; and conduct benchmarking and SWOT analysis. Our industry analysis highlights macro industry trends in the overall sector and micro trends faced by companies that do business in the [size=16pt]industry[/size]. The [size=16pt]industry[/size] report also provides key [size=16pt]industry[/size] statistics and 5-year forecasts to anticipate future [size=16pt]industry[/size] prospects so you can decide with confidence.

sinequanon:


Fair enough. By "new", I only mean something that you discovered independently.

I am just curious, because I think it is important to have a level of independent observation in order to critically appraise scientific claims in general (not just regurgitate from the media).

Take a rainbow, for example. How much do you know from observation (not after the fact of reading).

Did you discover on your own..

That when you face the middle of a rainbow, the Sun will be directly behind you?

That sometimes you get a double rainbow, and the outside one is inside out (red on the inside)?

That many rainbows have more than six or seven stripes (some of the inner colours repeat)?

etc.

I mean, a rainbow is a familiar thing. How often did your own observation kick in, and how successful were you in noticing these things before reading about them?

You are talking as If you have known me for a long time.

Ok let me clear your doubts.

I am a born scientist. When I was still very young(say four years old) always try to find things out myself,for example I can remember vividly how I try to mix water and oil together,I stirred it with a stick But it didn't mix thoroughly, there was no one i could ask why,because I kept to myself a lot. There was also a time a tried saving a lost chick,so i kept it in a lylon and tied the lylon ,i forgot about it for some days,i came back to my astonishment I found it dead with maggots in it,I pondered how the maggots got into it Since it was air tight. I did a lot of crazy experiments as I was growing up like trying to burn a sachet water on candle,covering a lighted candle over water,grinding the phosphorus material of matches mixing it with fire crackers substance then placing it on counter over fire,even that rainbow stuff,the way science tries to explain it I didn't believe it completely, until one day while I was in the bathroom, sun light was entering the window of the bathroom So I placed some water in my mouth and blew it out of my mouth to form a misty atmosphere, voila I created my own rainbow.

Don't see me as someone who only reads and accept whatever is found in textbooks .

Do you know that while I was in secondary school, those formulas they teach us in mathematics, I searched Through my further math textbook for the proof of everything, But didn't find it in textbook,So while learning integration and differentiation in calculus, I applied my knowledge and derived the formular for the volume of a sphere 4/3Πr^3,also derived that of cone and cylinder .

I discovered an Almighty formular for solving two simultaneous equation without the use of graph nor elimination nor substitution method.

It was a very long work and mathematical evidence that I typed, illustrated with diagrams,I can't find the hard copy again.

It might seem like am blowing my horns But you asked for it. My colleagues then in secondary school know me as a very ferocious researcher..Even now that I am in the university, I am still working on discovering something Which I won't disclose here.

Dapo777:


You have been saying senseless things now a days and I don't know why.
What is your reason for saying I must know the time something started before I can know that the movement of an event is not apparently visible. What sort of baseless conclusion is that.

So I must know the time,day month and year that evolution started before I can say that evolution isn't apparent on the macro level(in a short period)But micro level(in a short period of time) You are So clueless and confused. I thought you even understood my explanation But your statement "movement from micro level to macro level" shows that you Dnt even understand my explanation to even have a reasonable discussion with you. You were making sense When you emphasized that evolution is easily observed on a macro level over a very long period of time(millions) butt observable on a micro level over a short period of time(thousands of years) ,But for the same person to say "movement from micro level to macro level".makes me feel as If its not the same Reyginus that is making this ridiculous statement.

There is no such thing as movement from micro level to macro level,it is observed on the micro level over a short period of time and observed on a macro level over a long period. That's it. Nothing like movement from one level to another.

I find it difficult to accept that you are the same person who was making sense sense before to say "movement from micro to macro" .

Lol. Please tell me, when your micro levels accumulate and we have your macro level what just happened?

hifaif:



The Enlightenment was a sprawling intellectual,
philosophical, cultural, and social movement that
spread through England, France, Germany, and
other parts of Europe during the 1700s. Enabled by
the Scientific Revolution, which had begun as early
as 1500, the Enlightenment represented about as
big of a departure as possible from the Middle
Ages—the period in European history lasting from
roughly the fifth century to the fifteenth.

The millennium of the Middle Ages had been
marked by unwavering religious devotion and
unfathomable cruelty. Rarely before or after did the
Church have as much power as it did during those
thousand years. With the Holy Roman Empire as a
foundation, missions such as the Crusades and
Inquisition were conducted in part to find and
persecute heretics, often with torture and death.
Although standard at the time, such harsh
injustices would eventually offend and scare
Europeans into change. Science, though
encouraged in the late Middle Ages as a form of
piety and appreciation of God’s creation, was
frequently regarded as heresy, and those who tried
to explain miracles and other matters of faith faced
harsh punishment. Society was highly hierarchical,
with serfdom a widespread practice. There were
no mandates regarding personal liberties or rights,
and many Europeans feared religion—either at the
hands of an unmerciful God or at the hands of the
sometimes brutal Church itself.

The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment,
however, opened a path for independent thought,
and the fields of mathematics, astronomy, physics,
politics, economics, philosophy, and medicine
were drastically updated and expanded. The
amount of new knowledge that emerged was
staggering. Just as important was the enthusiasm
with which people approached the Enlightenment:
intellectual salons popped up in France,
philosophical discussions were held, and the
increasingly literate population read books and
passed them around feverishly. The Enlightenment
and all of the new knowledge thus permeated
nearly every facet of civilized life. Not everyone
participated, as many uneducated, rural citizens
were unable to share in the Enlightenment during
its course. But even their time would come, as the
Enlightenment also prompted the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution, which provided rural dwellers
with jobs and new cities in which to live.

http://m.sparknotes.com/history/european/enlightenment/context.html

The info here is a biased one. The major problem here wasn't relIgion rather it was an empire who caged everyone into some sort of slavery under the guise of religion. Even the church and by extension, religion suffered under this same empire because some doctrines of the scripture were manipulated, twisted and strange doctrines smuggled into the body of Christ which led to a protest by those who couldn't stand the strange happenings.

Obviously it wasn't only science that suffered this cruelty, even religion also suffered, hence the birth of the "protestants". Biased people like you will always want to see religion as the problem rather than the empire even when you know that christianity suffered the same cruelty.

Reyginus:
Lol. Please tell me, when your micro levels accumulate and we have your macro level what just happened?

Micro level doesn't accumulate,you still don't get it do you.

Micro level of evolution is observed,it doesn't accumulate.

It would be Better If you put it this way: micro changes accumulate over a very long period of time to give us macro changes observable in fossils.

Dapo777:


Micro level doesn't accumulate,you still don't get it do you.

Micro level of evolution is observed,it doesn't accumulate.

It would be Better If you put it this way: micro changes accumulate over a very long period of time to give us macro changes observable in fossils.

Lolol. See how you are allowing language be the barrier to this simple thing. Let me hit it home now.

What is the correlation between a cell and a tissue?

Reyginus:
Lolol. See how you are allowing language be the barrier to this simple thing. Let me hit it home now.

What is the correlation between a cell and a tissue?

Stop asking unrelated questions and admit you made a mistake.

Dapo777:


Stop asking unrelated questions and admit you made a mistake.

Lol. You can do better than this. Let me rephrase one more time.

What is responsible for the change in your macro level?