₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
let say the aim Is to show off to one of your friends on Facebook... you have a target in mind...and you know by placing the success online he could easily understand you are referring to him or her...

But this isn't about showing off success, is about showing off charity work.
At any rate, anybody who is psychologically affected by showoffs has serious issues which is not the fault of the person showing off. I tend to ignore showoffs, unless paying them attention would be beneficial to society, as is the case with charity showoff. In that case, I pay them attention, not for their sake, but for the sake of those who might later benefit from their bloated ego. It's a utilitarian philosophy.
---------------
Vaxx, I don't know your line of work, but judging from your previous posts, my educated guess is that you're a traditional diviner. So I'm guessing you have interacted with lots of people, and you've probably come across a lot of damaged people too. I don't know if you've noticed, but damaged people can seldom be fixed, so instead of painting a white and black world that excludes people that don't conform to our standards of what is good, we can as well bring out the best in every individual, even the damaged ones! This is what informs my approach vaxx. I don't claim that showoff is good, but I recognise that even showoff can be channelled towards desirable outcome.

vaxx:
AgentofAllah..... it seems you do not see it that wrong when advertise of success is place online to effect psychological damage on intended victim.......

Sorry, I don't get you. Who is the victim of advertised success?

The answer to this question may seem to depend very much on motive, but I would argue otherwise. Although, motive, I concur, does play a role, but not for reasons you might think obvious. The OP has identified the two extremes of the motive spectrum, namely:

(1) Posting for show off, and
(2) Posting to encourage others to follow suit.

Of course, common sense may suggest that the former motive is a bad reason to post one's charitable act on social media, hence don't do it. End of discussion! But wait! I've never been much of a stickler for common sense. I see it as a thought terminating force that blinds us to the truth.

Now, having gotten common sense out of the way, it is important to establish what the truth is. Here's the thing; any act of charity always has a net positive effect on at least two people, irrespective of motive. It benefits the taker, obviously, but it also benefits the giver. In fact, research has shown that selflessness is an illusion. Even when there is no apparent gain, seemingly selfless acts do have biological benefits for the giver.

Charity for Show Off:
Okay, let us be clear, anybody who does acts of charity only so that their ego may be massaged by admirers suffers from some form of narcissistic personality disorder. Granted, such a persons is hopelessly dependent on praise from others to be happy, however, this person also believe the way to earn their ego trip fix is by doing something good for others. Now, the act of being recognised for their charity may be regarded as a form of positive reinforcement that ensures this giver feels inclined to repeat their act of charity, if only for an encore of the adulating chorus they so much seek. This way, both the giver and the takers are happier for it, and there is a net positive effect.

Charity to encourage others:
Here, the giver advertises their good deed to get other people to do the same. Obviously, this motive sells the maximum possible impact from a single person, so the benefit of this goes without saying. Taking this path though, requires a lot of class. Here the giver must deemphasise self, and make the act, the impact and the ease of execution the subject of their post. As you see, much effort must be expended in the method of communication; but from a utilitarian point of view, it is the most profitable.

I conclude that irrespective of motive, there can be nothing wrong with advertising one's charity on social media. However, some motives are more beneficial than others.

Final thoughts:
I would argue that most people who advertise their charities online fall somewhere between the extremities of the motive spectrum. Hardly anybody would claim they didn't feel good when they were praised for a charitable act, even if they had no direct intention to be praised. To this, I say happy giving!
---------------------
Edit: Just read the comments and noticed Kevoh beat me to my response. Here's a shoutout to your renegade mind fam!

geoworldedu:
sorry but I didn't see where they stated that fish became human being in those paper reviews. That was the topic of discussion.

Then you should have asked for clarification rather than casually dismissing it as conspiracy theory. Apparently, you need a thorough introduction to the theory of evolution.

The first postulate of evolution is that all living things have the same common ancestors. As such, every biological feature of every living creature can be traced back to an original ancestor. The more universal a feature is across a diverse number of species, the more primitive such a feature is, meaning all species sharing that feature share a common ancestor. Two of the most studied common features are tetrapoda (four feet) and Gnathostomata (Jaw bones).

https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/348/6232/aaa3716/F2.large.jpg
Evolution of tetrapods

It turns out that a certain genetic signaling pathway, known as the Sonic Hedgehog (SHH) signalling, is responsible for the development of paired limbs (in all limbed animals, including humans) and fins (in fishes). In one of the papers I shared, titled: "A shared role for sonic hedgehog signalling in patterning chondrichthyan gill arch appendages and tetrapod limbs", it was found that this SHH also plays a role in the formation of certain parts of Chondrichthyes (sharks and rays) gills. Their finding is summarised in their conclusion thus:

" Our demonstration of a dual role for Shh signalling in patterning the endoskeleton of chondrichthyan gill arches points to a common molecular mechanism underlying the axial patterning of branchial rays and paired fins/limbs, and highlights chondrichthyan branchial rays as an important feature in the evolutionary story of gnathostome paired appendages {i.e. limbs and fins}".

The point here is that these features are only shared because of our shared common ancestors. Shared common ancestry is the only scientifically sound explanation for such a remarkable coincidence.

geoworldedu:
you don't just bring any conspiracy theory forward becos somebody put it there.

Wow!! You asked for references and I presented you with news articles and peer-reviewed papers for good measure. It is however the first time in my life I've heard someone refer to peer-reviewed papers from reputable scientific journals as "conspiracy theory". Being an author of scientific work myself, I find this charge deeply insulting and disrespectful; considering the months, and occasionally, years of hard work these authors put into their research. I am not saying they cannot be wrong, but if you wish to dispute their claims, you best follow the well established procedures of science, instead of blurting out unsubstantiated ad hominems.

Give me where the founders of the evolution theory like Charles Darwin said we evolved from fish and I can start taking you serious from there.

Finally, you obviously have no clue how science works if you truly think Darwin is the sole/final authority on the theory of evolution. As such, it'll be a waste of my time to further indulge you. Please, feel free to believe whatever crap you want to believe about evolution. I had mistaken you for a reasonable person, but it's not a mistake I'm eager to repeat anytime soon.

Good bye!!

geoworldedu:
Reference pls at your last statement

We do belong to the same cordate phylum, so it is implied that our origins trace back to the same common fish ancestor

You may read these articles for light introduction:

(1) http://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255

(2) https://gizmodo.com/new-evidence-suggests-that-human-limbs-evolved-from-sha-1771427923

And if you want to go fully technical, you will find in many scientific articles, obliging partners:

(1) http://dev.biologists.org/content/143/8/1313 (Note: we are Tetrapods)

(2) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07674-y (Note: we are gnathostomes)

Op, I'm not a Muslim, but I do have a strong Muslim background, so if this helps, you should know that there is not one single place in the Quran where Muslim women are explicitly instructed not to marry Christian men. Yes, a verse exists that instructs Muslims not to marry disbelievers in general, but the Quran, and Islam by extension, does not consider Christians and Jews as disbelievers. It sees them as kin, and even fondly refers to them as people of the book.
I challenge any Muslim to provide a verse that bans Muslim women from marrying Christian men. There's a general saying in Islam that if god hasn't made something explicitly forbidden, it is an unforgivable sin to forbid it on god's behalf. So, in spite of what the self-acclaimed, twatweasel, knob head scholars may say, they've basically made up that shitty rule to control women.

I hope love prevails for you!

geoworldedu:
Clay didn't form man, arh..! I Haven't heard or seen any clay becoming man in the last 1000 years, I don't support yahweh/allah creationist story, but I support scientific theory like 'evolution'.

Evolution didn't say that human evolved from fish, rather human evolved from homo habilis, erectus etc. Why is there a stop in yahweh creating more people with clay?

Humans and all known organic lifeforms are made of hydrocarbons, clay consists of Aluminium, silicon, hydrogen and oxygen, but it is missing the most important element necessary for life: Carbon. So how could humans have come from clay?


And yes, evolution does claim that we were fish at some point.

dalaman:
Islam uses fear to entrap it's adherent the way other religions do not. It won't die out. It is projected to surpass christianity in the future. [code][/code]

Islam in its present form will die out, like all anachronistic ideas do. In fact it is already beginning to die out. Wahabi Islam, due to its inability to adapt, is quickly being choked by the inexorability of progress. The violent expressions you see are the final convulsions of death by asphyxiation.

There are other interpretations of Islam, the more peaceful strands, like Sufism and other new age interpretations that even allow women to be imams in mixed gender mosques, which are becoming more and more popular. These are the ones that will eventually take over the Islamic legacy. You'll see!

Proudgorgeousga:
also imagine an all powerful creator angry at women for using perfume while allowing men the freedom to do so.
You won't believe a certain moniker on this nairaland was seriously defending this bullshit and attacking those that disagree with it. mehn!
sometimes when I visit the Islamic section I marvel at the height of the mental ŕedardation some of them possess.

You have no idea of the many fetishes of Allah. It is particularly obsessed with women.
No plucking of eyebrows, cover your body (the more you cover, the better, because you're a massive walking va.gina), don't talk to men, don't participate in entertainment activities (yes, no singing, dancing and merrying about for you), don't wear make up, don't wear shoes that make sounds, always lower your gaze, no shaking hands with men, never deny sex to your husband (tired Just shut up and spread), your husband is allowed to rape you (Q2:223 Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like), if you're a slave woman...hmmm...don't even get me started on that one.

Hoping4Life:
This is very true. It's just super hard to internalize when you've been brought up to psychologically depend on God. My brain and my heart are still yet to internalize this. Especially when I think of all the tortures of hell fire. The Qur'an is very sadistic when describing this. and I''ve memorized a large chunk of this. Thank you for the vid, really liked it,

Glad you liked the video. The parallels it draws are telling

iamgenius:
Praise be to Allah
The man is in a position of leadership over the woman, and it is not permissible for a non-Muslim to be in a position of leadership over a Muslim woman, because Islam is the true religion and all other religions are false.

If a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man, knowing the ruling thereon, then she is a zaaniyah and is subject to the hadd punishment for zina. If she was unaware of the ruling, then she is excused, but they must be separated, with no need for talaaq (divorce), because the marriage is invalid in the first place.

Based on that, the Muslim woman whom Allah has honoured with Islam and her guardian must beware of that and adhere to the limits set by Allah, and be proud of being Muslims. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Whosoever desires honour, power and glory then to Allah belong all honour, power and glory (and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshipping Allah (Alone))”

[Faatir 35:10].

We advise this woman to end her relationship with that Christian man, because it is not permissible for a woman to form a relationship with a man who is a non-mahram to her.

But if he chooses to become Muslim willingly and voluntarily, then there is nothing wrong with her marrying him, if her guardian agrees to that.

This is exactly what I meant when I said "It steals your life and hands its control pad to sanctimonious twatweasels", and it didn't even take long for one to surface.

In the fried brain of this particular twatweasel, women are mentally incapable of making life choices on their own. It is perfectly okay for a Muslim man to hook up with a Jewish, Christian or Muslim woman...hell, it is even great to have all three at the same time if he wants. But a woman cannot choose who she wants to love, needs her guardian's permission to love, and must always submit to the supremacy of her male overlords.

No one, especially no woman, would ordinarily settle for this bullshit and think it came from some supremely intelligent being, unless threatened with eternal fire and the Hadd for Zina (i.e. stoning to death)! I can see how a frustrated, obsessive and possessive desert Arab man, overcome by rage, jealousy and a false sense of superiority would do this to a woman who doesn't agree with his patriarchal worldview, and claim that it is the commandment of Allah, Al-latif al-waddud (the kind, the loving). But does the threat seem consistent with the notion of Al latif'al Waddud to you?

Twatweasel!!

Hoping4Life:
Even after realising to a certain extent that none of the claims of Islam can be validated, there's still the mental torture of hell fire being the end if I'm wrong. I'm more terrified of death, seeing as I may burn for rejecting my faith.

The threat of hell was the bit that was hardest for me to overcome. That however is the sole point of this threat! Terrorists use the fear of bombs, guns and painful chemical deaths to coerce their victims into submission. Islam uses eternal fire to achieve that same goal. The only reason such a threat exists in the first place is because it is easy to see through the profound bullshit the religion preaches, so threats of pain is required to displace reason. Good ideas usually do not need threats to sell. No one brandishes a gun coercing you to accept that you need to work to put food on your table, so no one should need to threaten you with fire to convince you that kindness is a beneficial thing. However, they sure as hell need the threat of fire to force you to accept that every bullshit attributed to Muhammed, such as how long your dress is, whether or not you use perfumes, how or who you choose to have sex with or whether you shave your eyebrows, is god's will. Can you seriously imagine the creator of the cosmos, a sentient being with infinite intelligence, sitting on its throne, watching you during sex like a voy.eur, proclaiming to itself and its minion angels: "I am proud of the way my servant just had sex, give her one heaven piggy point for good position, and another for doing it with a man"? It's risible!

And there's this psychologicalbpart whenever I dare to open the Qur'an, I almost always randomly open verses talking about lack of Faith and consequences.

That's because of the insecurities of the author(s) of the Quran. They knew their bullshit had to be accepted on faith, not reason, so they almost certainly followed every bullshit with the threat of severe punishment as a consequence for seeing through it. If you allow the threats of an abuser force you into submission, then the abuser has already won.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm4GtxOOqeI

Please come out of that mental torture chamber quickly. It steals your life and hands its control pad to sanctimonious twatweasles, and then threatens you with idiotic eternal punishments just in case you harbour any life reclaiming ideas. I say snatch your life back from primitive fools and call their bluff! You'll be happier for it!

johnydon22:
The second question is;
DOES LIVING ENTITIES FOLLOW SAME LAWS AS INANIMATE ENTITIES?

Let us save ourselves the trouble, the short answer is NO.
The one thing that separates a living cell from non-living things is that living cells have the ability to self arrange and replicate.
Since living cells can self arrange and non-living cells can’t in what way do you judge them under the same set of rules?

Very nice write up. Just a minor correction. Non living cells can, and do self-arrange, using only the electronic properties of component atoms. (See crystal lattices)

DoctorAlien:
Can an infinite task ever be done or completed? If, in order to reach a certain end, infinitely many steps had to precede it, could the end ever be reached? Of course not—not even in an infinite time. For an infinite time would be unending, just as the steps would be. In other words, no end would ever be reached. The task would—could—never be completed. But what about the step just before the end? Could that point
ever be reached? Well, if the task is really infinite, then an infinity of steps must also have preceded it. And therefore the step just before the end could also never be reached. But then neither could the step just before that one. In fact, no step in
the sequence could be reached, because an infinity of steps must always have preceded any step; must always have been gone through one by one before it. The problem comes from supposing that an infinite sequence could ever reach, by temporal succession, any point at all.

Your infinite time argument does make sense, but only if you consider a linear process. An infinitely circular process may yet circumvent completely, the problem posed by linear infinity. Theoretical arguments exist for such a cyclic process.

ifenes:
Firstly the limb is an illusion, a distorted limb is a state of mine reflecting out in the unreal physical.

Please, help me understand your worldview. So, if the limb is an illusion, I'm curious to know if you carry out your day to day activities limbless?

The viewer himself/herself with a more balance energy will not experience sick people. Our thoughts and energy reflects seeing poor people, sick people, nightmares etc.

Does this mean you don't see poor/sick people again? For instance, when you look at the picture of Nick Vujicic below, do you see a fully limbed man? Or perhaps, you're not in alignment with your god self?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y9iB117iQNo/maxresdefault.jpg
Beautiful Nick was born with tetra-amelia

So if I see sick people, it means I am not in alignment with my God self. If you see sick people, you are the cause, because what you see is the processing of your mind. So believing we are Gods means we know we create the "illusions" of sicknesses, good health, poor health that we see. Nothing is real. The sick guy on the bed is not real, only a projection.

Yes, what we see is the process of our minds, but are our minds isolated from the environment in which they operate? Isn't it the case that our minds receive external stimuli that dictate how we see what we see?

butterflylion:
we did not have a debate. we had a fun banter. My thread was not meant for a debate but for simple free idea exchange.

His own case is for strictly debate purposes. He is my troll attraction

I love the way he lies runs *in rihannas voice*

To be honest, you're the only one who seems to be dismissively referring to your abrupt desertion of our conversation as "fun banter". I don't see it that way! To me, you're just avoiding questions that expose the shallowness of your belief system. Be that as it may, you are free to interpret your action (or lack thereof) however you want. What I don't understand is why you wish to deny someone else the same right you freely exercise. Is this one of the ways you "try" to be honest?

butterflylion:
Precisely.

Cc catfishbilly

Fantastic! I'm totally fine with your exercising the right not to respond to my questions. For the sake of consistency, I hope you are mature enough to refrain from harassing hopefulLandlord for exercising this same right. To persist otherwise is to advertise yourself as a hypocrite.

butterflylion:
Prove them wrong na

See desperation making you share your own post so your voltrons whom you are hiding behind shamelessly can all appear

Runner runner dodger dodger

butterflylion:
Oh and ps: my thread has not been abandoned not after I have made my submission and my grounds known. The rest was simply a banter between me and agentofallah and no debate because if you had an iota of sense you would see the thread was a free for all thought process and not debate related. He has his position and I have mine. Nothing either of us says can change that.

To be fair, I did ask you questions which you have thus far, left unanswered; so you can hopefully appreciate why it would appear to observers like you've abandoned the thread, even though there is, of course, no obligation on you to answer them.

I do not see why an Igbo Lagosian cannot hold political office in Lagos. Lagos is a big and complex state and its political system should be meritocratic not based on some parochial ethnic privilege.

shaybebaby:
They will be charged by generator.

Lol...I'm sure the homes of our rural compatriots are just proliferated with fossil fuel powered generators waiting to charge electric cars that will save our environment from the nefarious effects of burning fossil fuels.

I wonder how it is suited for Africa's rural roads if it is powered by electricity?

AnonyNymous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxbTsZbKdaM

The answer is simply whichever side that bribes God. Watch this video for more understanding

Haha! Very Monty pythonesque. Love it!

menxer:
Which is most appropriate "the hermaphrodite God" or "the homosexual God" in describing the sex orientation of the God of our chosen religion?

It touched itself to beget itself as its only begotten son. Is it a self-servicing (Not to be mistaken for self-serving ...although it probably is that too) schizophrenic?

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

A sperm contributes the haploid number of chromosomes to the zygote. Indeed, the 500 million sperm cells in question can be seen as 500 million sets of the haploid number of chromosomes.

Contrary to your claim, the 37 trillion cells have everything to do with the sperm. Without the sperm cell contributing its haploid number of chromosomes, the 37 trillion cells won't be.

Arguing along the same line, the key word here is "mature". Mature, man. We did away with 500 million cells which have undergone full development(and can no longer develop further) to get what? A single cell(zygote). What if we allow the single cell(zygote) undergo full development? We have 37 trillion cells.

Very efficient, man.

So, I imagine it's these chromosomes that power the evolution of the zygote, abi?

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

The sperm technically does not "cease to exist", as its haploid number of chromosomes(which is its functional essence) can be found in the zygote.

I disagree with your claim that the useful work of a sperm cell ends immediately fertilization is over. Indeed, fertilization is simply fusing two sets of the haploid number of chromosomes(one from the sperm and one from the egg) to form a diploid number of chromosomes(zygote). The haploid number of chromosomes which the sperm cell contributes to the zygote continues to do "useful work" in participating in the process of replication. The work continues till we have 37 trillion cells.

Abeg komot dia! I prefer to stick with the biological definition of a sperm, not this your nyama-nyama redefinition that seeks to misattribute energy from other phenomena to an all-powerful sperm cell.

I will only accept your redefinition on 2 conditions:

(1) You have to accept that it is applicable to only you.
(2) You also have to accept that half of your brain is sperm cells.

DoctorAlien:
That is merely what you see as designed, which isn't true. One can also claim that design should produce a baby boy and a baby girl with each childbirth. Merely opinions.

First of all, it is disingenuous to quote me out of context. For full disclosure, here's what I wrote in context:

AgentOfAllah:
Your argument would make sense if it wasn't god that designed the whole process. I'm pretty sure a master designer should be able to make reproduction efficient enough that 1 sperm cell easily fertilises an egg cell without having to waste 499,999,999 cells.

Now, in its proper context, you will see that what is implied is that any designed process must be evaluated based on the function it promises to serve. If you believe sperms are purposefully designed, then you must also define the purpose for which they have been so designed. For all intents, this purpose is to fertilise eggs. So, the fact that 499,999,999 sperm cells will die out of 500,000,000 without fulfilling their promise is a functional observation not a whimsical opinion. For you to prove my evaluation wrong, you must show that the dead sperms served some purpose that necessitated their existence in the first place.

The potential of each sperm cell to fertilize the egg does not bear in calculating the efficiency of the system.

What do you think is the definition of efficiency?

Your definition of the true efficiency, E, as "the number of successfully fertilized eggs/number of ejected sperms" is a funny play of words. Okay, let's do it like this:

successfully fertilized egg = human being = ~37 trillion cells.

Efficiency, E = (37 000 000 000 000/500 000 000) x 100%.

There you have your efficiency.

Jeez! This is ridiculous! Are you serious?? You have several conceptual problems here, my friend. First of all, a sperm does not contribute a single cell to the developing zygote, nor does it contribute energetically to the process of cell division. All of this energy comes from the mother's yolk sac; an attached enclosure of nutrients. So, the 37 trillion cells have nothing to do with the sperm.

Now, back to efficiency. Efficiency is defined as the useful work per quantity of energy. The useful work of a sperm ends the moment fertilisation is over. At that point, that sperm ceases to exist. As such, the efficiency here, let's call it ejaculation efficiency, is a measure of how many sperms perform useful work, compared to how many sperms were ejected to perform that work. Clearly then, our efficiency is a function of:
(1) The act of fertilisation (useful work), and
(2) Number of ejected sperms (each being a quantum of energy).

DoctorAlien:
If only 1 egg cell is present for fertilization, then the output of the system must necessarily be 1 in number(i.e. 1 sperm cell + 1 egg cell = 1 zygote). Now, if we calculate the efficiency using numbers only, the system appears inefficient in that 500 million sperm cells were put in to get only one human being. But that is just like saying the process of planting maize is inefficient, since you may put in 15 seeds and get one plant.

What if we factor in their complexities? If the complexity of a mature sperm cell can be quantified, and termed X, you can imagine the magnitude of the complexity of a mature human being in terms of multiples of X. Factor that in and see if the system is still inefficient.

I say, therefore, that doing away with 500 million mature sperm cells to get one mature human being(composed of tens of trillions of cells) is not wasteful at all.

Sorry the answer is coming in fragments. That's the best I can do for now.

You don't understand the meaning of efficiency. Please read my response to your preceding comment.

DoctorAlien:
This statement seems to be ignorant of the fact that of the 500 million sperm cells released, only a handful get to the fallopian tube. The acidity of the vagina(which protects it from potential infections) kills many of the sperm cells, others get lost in the female reproductive tract. Others still are killed by the WBCs in the uterus which see the sperm cells as invaders. When the lucky ones locate the fallopian tube, they are first capacitated(in the isthmus) and then begin to make their way to the ampulla. Then again, in the ampulla, they must survive long enough to meet an egg. Can only one sperm beat all the odds to fertilize the egg? Can 10 million, for that matter?

This is diversionary, and does not change anything. Allow me to paint the picture for you again: We are to understand that this system was wholly designed and executed by an infinitely brilliant creator. It speaks to the competency of this creator, that humans, with their limited intelligence, have been able to develop systems that can discriminate between, and sort different types of sperm cells, with > 85% efficiency, yet this supposedly brilliant entity is unable to create the female reproductive tract to discriminate between useful sperm cells and hostile cells. Can you imagine that? Human brilliance is ripe enough to enable us preferentially select zygote gender, meanwhile, an infinitely brilliant creator has to compensate for poor design by forcing the testes to manufacture 100's of millions more cells than is actually required per fertilisation event.

DoctorAlien:
This argument of "efficiency" is hogwash. That 500 million sperm cells try to fertilize 1 egg cell removes nothing from the fact that the reproductive system of man was created by an intelligent GOD. If anything, 500 million sperm cells are released with each ejaculation to ensure fertilization, in line with GOD's command "be fruitful and multiply".

It isn't hogwash, I'm afraid. Your argument would make sense if it wasn't god that designed the whole process. I'm pretty sure a master designer should be able to make reproduction efficient enough that 1 sperm cell easily fertilises an egg cell without having to waste 499,999,999 cells.

If you want to calculate efficiency, do so using complexity and not number. In this case, take 500 million x the complexity of 1 sperm cell as the input, and the 1 x the complexity of a human being as the output.

edited.

Sorry, but that's an incredibly absurd way to frame the efficiency and I'll tell you why: Every single one of those sperm cells has the potential to become an equally complex human if it manages to fertilize an egg, so computing the complexity of the post-fertilisation product is an epic exercise in redundancy.

Efficiency is defined as output/input, in this case, the output is the fertilised egg(s) that later become human, so the true efficiency, E, is given by:

E = number of successfully fertilised eggs/number of ejected sperms. The upper limit for this value is ~10^-7%, supposing we ignore all the other inefficiencies, like copulation during menstrual cycles, or wasted sperm during masturbations or other non-coi.tus fetishes that cause ejaculations, or even defective sperms manufactured by dysfunctional testes.

Bottom line is this: The human reproductive system is so inefficient that we eject 500,000,000 sperm cells to compete for 1 egg. If this was designed, it is the most underwhelming piece of engineering ever conceived. Such a designer, especially if marketed as omnipotent and omniscient, deserves not praise, but ridicule!

Hier:
In context, perfect means, that accurately fit or complement the process of reproduction

Well, I do think the process of reproduction is anything but perfect. During copulation, a human male ejects anything from 200 million to 500 million sperm cells, all of which die, but 1. So the male Instruments is less than 10^-7% efficient. Even humans have designed machines that are more efficient than this, so how can a powerful creator be less competent than we are? I haven't counted how many egg cells a woman sheds in her life time. Again, too much inefficiency. Doesn't seem to me like something that was planned out. So is this part of your definition of perfect?

okay, what I meant is, considering that the male and female might have existed somehow in the past, as evolution was still ongoing. Is it then possible that the separately and alreadily existing male or female develop a separate sexual organ, of course, they might be coming together, but there is a separate form of the male and female reproductive organ, and not only that, s*men and ov*m come into the scene sounds hasty or uncalled for. Why should the male develop a pen*$ while a lady went another way having a vul*@

Well, this whole argument is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that gender has always been a fixed thing. The facts are this:

(1) The vast majority of species reproduce asexually
(2) There are many species that can reproduce both sexually and asexually, like some worms and fish
(3) There are some species that do not have fixed gender, like the clown fish

What does this tell us? At the very least, it tells us that there is no clear line that defines gender, however straight forward it appears. As such, you have no reason to believe that gender had always been specieated.

Hier:
lol, do you believe what he's saying

Like I said, I didn't find a place you made such a claim, so I have no reason to believe him. Did you make such a claim?