These things exist and there are still people who think we are not living in a computer simulation lel

These things exist and there are still people who think we are not living in a computer simulation lel

Other urls found in this thread:

s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/40055996/The_Bounds_of_Reason_Game_Theory_and_the20151116-7275-11rpzmg.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1489753034&Signature=sIgbgUsVBsfr291FgnWsaoKhpAI=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=The_Bounds_of_Reason_Game_Theory_and_the.pdf
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)81050-0
sci-hub.cc/10.1016/0169-5347(96)81050-0
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.002
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Explain it, evolutards

I remember watching Jimmy Neutron where they do the thing with the virus when I was a kid like 12 years ago and then coming back years later to college learning about this shit and they look the fucking same

Like wtf

>wish I had a pic related but all of the ones I could find are potato quality anyway

Get Sheperd, he knows what to do in these situations !

>bacteriofags

>jizzgonerogue.jpg

> someone suggests "we live in a computer simulation"
> thousands of teenaged boys running around trying to "hack the universe"

hahah, that's better than religion.

When they showed us what the HIV virus looked like in school I remember thinking to my 9 year old self ain't no way that's natural . Nature does not make that shape

it does if you look down at that level. what you meant was "i've never seen anything shaped like that before."

I had seen satellites so that's what I immediately thought of

Wanna be a little less vague faggot?

How does 'simulated universe' follow from what you posted?

You're like the pseudo-intellectual version of a creationist: "if god doesn't exist, how do you explain bananas?"

yes, because "nature" always presents the world as you have become accustom to seeing.

Amen

If we were living in a sim there'd be less minute details like the ones in the OP pic

bacterium use sex pila to transfer genetic material today, a theory for bacterium is that previously used genetic material surrounded by protein coats to transfer material from one cell to another. too bad evolution is random and the right combination of genetic material made self reproducing transfer pods known as viruses

Well said

Bacteria and a virus are different u degenerates so referring to them as one

we are not living in sim. we are living in sin.

If we were living in a simulation, why make it even remotely enjoyable for us? If from the moment we're born until we die is all we know, why even give us consciousness?

Looks like bacteriophages. What's the big deal? What are you freaking out about?

If its a simulation why not kys now and cut the bs?

Evolution is not random. Please go look up the basics of how evolution by natural selection works.

its one of the reasons nobody ever listens to a 9yo

I prefer the term 'dream'.

I think the most obvious fact that evolution cannot be true is all around us.
If evolution was true then gays wouldn't exist. They cant reproduce and serves not purpose or value and should have been extinct.
Yet here they are and scientists have never been able to explain it.
If you ask a scientist about it they just frown and walk away because it is taboo to ask questions about things that science can't answer. Sort of like religion, huh?

But it is. Natural selection is just a different way of saying "if it doesn't die before it reproduces, it's genetic line will obviously continue ". Evolution is a process of all the worst dying off until only the ones that could make it are left, whether they just barely make it or easily over achieve is irrelevant.

You just described a process that isn't random. Please go look up the definition of the word random.

Are gays not just considered an evolutionary dead end?

Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations.
Congratulations, you are both retarded.

So why aren't they all dead, if millions or even billions of years has passed according to the theory?

They are damaged goods. No use in talking about them together with evolution. Moron who fucks another man's shit hole is irrelevant for anything good, pure and wise.

Ah Dunning-Kruger, we meet again. Actually, game theory modelling has shown that communities with small numbers of homosexual males and bisexual females outscore strictly heterosexual communities, mostly by soaking up "extras" during periods of gender imbalance. This explains why communities which preserve gene pools which predispose towards homosexuality are more likely to survive. But then, I suspect that reading peer-reviewed scientific journals would take valuable time away from your busy cowadoody schedule. Amirite, Trumpfriend?

natural selection doesn't just happen once with a species, so of course there'd still be 'dead ends' that go nowhere with reproduction

Is anyone going to explain the pic?

There are a number of reasons that evolution would prefer a percentage of homosexuals within communities. The chance of survival goes up and it can be seen across the animal kingdom. Don't let that get in the way of your bigoted nonsense though.

Evolution isn't like some stand in for god that designs nature, dumbass. It's a random process that works because only things that don't die, live. For gay people to stop existing, all genetic combinations leading to it would have to be forcibly inhibited for the rest of humanity. But evolution doesn't work like that. Really, thinking of evolution as some sort of force of nature is an error. Evolution is simply the effect caused by things not strong enough to overcome their environment dying, and those capable enough to not die, living. If something that doesn't die happens to have individual genetic possibilities that are detrimental to it's natural continuation process, it's not as if evolution eill be like a computer that deletes it or something. It'll just happen. If it dies it dies, and if it lives, it doesn't matter how stupid it is or how badly it did, it will continue it's genetic line. Evolution is not some kind of ordered process, it's just a series of happenings and effects that led to todays world being as it is. Nature is by no means perfect or even well designed, but if it just barely works, that's good enough to keep it's genetics alive to not die for another generation.

You have me mistaken for someone else, I'm not Dunning-Kruger, I haven't even heard of him.
Why don't you link me this "peer-reviewed scientific journal" so I can read it for myself?

By random I mean that it has no enforced order.

what's the name of that virus?

LOL WHAT. so many words with no meaning..

I think you may actually be retarded. Like, below 70 IQ.

Still waiting for the "peer-reviewed scientific journal"

Mutations are random. Natural selection is dependent on the environment I.e random.

This

Evolution is common knowledge, you should know it.
But if you're really that stickler about it, go read the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin, and that should give you something to work off of.

Gintis, H (2009) The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioural Sciences. Princeton University Press.

Retard.

Still waiting.

This is how it usually ends.
People pretend to know shit and appeal to an higher authority (some unnamed scientist that has written some paper they can't name or find) believing it will end the discussion.
But when you ask them to show you where they read it they magically disappear or start name calling.
My guess, it was actually just a youtube video with extremely generalized information they couldn't graps. They memorize a few phrases and spews them off as facts.

We gave you two.

>Still waiting
I posted a citation, you absolute fucking slackjawed moron. Get off your mom's laptop and go to the library and pick up a fucking book, you slopeheaded, mouth-breathing cretin. Fucking christ, you are cancer personified.

Just Google it. Unlike you, I have to go to work, and don't have time to look for it.
Wikipedia has it with sources too. There's some Neil deGrasse Tyson documentary about it as well.

The mutations are random. Whether they survive or not depends on the environment (not random). The main difference is that most of the time you don't see the failed mutations because they die and don't manage to reproduce/survive for long.

I'll read it for sure.
But from the looks of it the paper is about economics and social psychology which non has to do with the gays.
On top of that the author is an economist and a behavioral scientist with no qualification in anthropology or psychology.

ITT: OP played Star Ocean 3 way too many times

Gays keep reappearing in society because the random mutations keep making them gay. That's it. What do you not understand about this?

>The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioural Sciences

This is not about homosexuality. At least a search on related terms on the pdf ( s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/40055996/The_Bounds_of_Reason_Game_Theory_and_the20151116-7275-11rpzmg.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1489753034&Signature=sIgbgUsVBsfr291FgnWsaoKhpAI=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=The_Bounds_of_Reason_Game_Theory_and_the.pdf ) didnt come up with anything. point to the source please, im interested in learning what "soaking up extras" does for the "score of a community".
no troll

Cute bacteriophages.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)81050-0

I just found the specific model. It's called the Kin Hypothesis Model, developed by E.O. Wilson. There have been a number of game theory models based on it, including J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard's in 1991. If you do a scholar search on the Kin Hypothesis model, you'll find hundreds of citations.

Bacteriophage. Viruses that infect bacteria.

>10.1016/0169-5347(96)81050-0

thanks. file for other anons: sci-hub.cc/10.1016/0169-5347(96)81050-0

thanks, will look it up

this one looks also promising: Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.002

abstract: There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency. One hypothesis proposes that while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them. However, it is not clear what such an advantage may be. To investigate this, we examine a data set where a large community-based twin sample (N=4904) anonymously completed a detailed questionnaire examining sexual behaviors and attitudes. We show that psychologically masculine females and feminine men are (a) more likely to be nonheterosexual but (b), when heterosexual, have more opposite-sex sexual partners. With statistical modelling of the twin data, we show that both these relationships are partly due to pleiotropic genetic influences common to each trait. We also find a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than do heterosexual twin pairs. Taken together, these results suggest that genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population.