IOS devices have no JavaScript debugger Derailed



  • @boomzilla said:

    @serguey123 said:
    I'm not talking about the fact that people die of cancer, I'm talking about the fact that you couldn't get cancer if DNA was perfect.
    And so "perfection" includes being impervious to radiation and various chemicals known to the State of California? I guess that's not totally unreasonable as a definition of perfection, but it makes talking about it like you were kinda dumb.

    That is not the only way mutation occur, heck is not even the most common.  Mutations occur normally.  You should read about how cancer actually occurs I guess.

    @morbiuswilter said:
    @serguey123 said:
    Man-made? There are a lot of old structures that still could serve their original purpose and are very, very old.

    That's not a machine.

    def: A device having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work

    @morbiuswilter said:

    What you are saying is "If something is not damaged, it can remain undamaged for some time." DNA is actually very resilient, it's just that it has a different use case than you want it to.

    So, cancer was intended?

    @morbiuswilter said:

    I never said that I don't want people to live forever

    You should, they are too many of you already



  • @boomzilla said:

    I think it's a mistake to anthropomorphize stuff like this.

    Perhaps. Anthropomorphism is a common way of explaining things. I considered avoiding it but figured most people here were smart enough to understand that DNA isn't sentient (not saying you aren't, just in general). But, yes, a lot of evolutionary biologists feel that anthropomorphizing natural processes gives the wrong impression of things.

    @boomzilla said:

    This is a similar fallacy IMHO to thinking that the current product of evolution is better than previous results simply because it came after. That's not how evolution and natural selection work.

    Absolutely. For example, mankind is the most successful species on Earth at the moment. When dinosaurs were around, we'd probably have died off rather quickly. It's all about timing.

    Also, why the fuck does Chrome's spellchecker not recognize "anthropomorphize"??



  • @serguey123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @serguey123 said:
    I'm not talking about the fact that people die of cancer, I'm talking about the fact that you couldn't get cancer if DNA was perfect.
    And so "perfection" includes being impervious to radiation and various chemicals known to the State of California? I guess that's not totally unreasonable as a definition of perfection, but it makes talking about it like you were kinda dumb.

    That is not the only way mutation occur, heck is not even the most common.  Mutations occur normally.  You should read about how cancer actually occurs I guess.

    Fuuuuuu....Yes, of course, excuse me for not reading your mind about what you apparently meant. You'll not that I made no mention about frequency, but was simply addressing the fact that you were saying, effectively, "if DNA were not bound by the laws of physics..."

    @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilter said:

    I never said that I don't want people to live forever

    You should, they are too many of you already

    LOL. +1



  • @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilter said:
    @serguey123 said:
    Man-made? There are a lot of old structures that still could serve their original purpose and are very, very old.

    That's not a machine.

    def: A device having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work

    Yes, and buildings do not do work. I don't know anyone who would consider a building a type of machine.

    @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilter said:

    What you are saying is "If something is not damaged, it can remain undamaged for some time." DNA is actually very resilient, it's just that it has a different use case than you want it to.

    So, cancer was intended?

    No, DNA can't "intend" anything. However, DNA does not need the species it exists in to resist cancer indefinitely, so it doesn't. If there was some advantage to resisting cancer indefinitely, it's possible it might come to be. However, and this is the point you are missing, it is a disadvantage to DNA for its host to live indefinitely.

    @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilter said:

    I never said that I don't want people to live forever

    You should, they are too many of you already

    WTF? I'm starting to think you know very little about biology and are just projecting your own philosophy onto things with no regard for facts.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Anthropomorphism is a common way of explaining things. I considered avoiding it but figured most people here were smart enough to understand that DNA isn't sentient (not saying you aren't, just in general).

    Yeah, and not that I don't do it either. It's often the easy and lazy way out, and close enough for simple explanations. But for all that's "good" about it, the incorrect stuff rubs the pedantic dickweed in me the wrong way*.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    But, yes, a lot of evolutionary biologists feel that anthropomorphizing natural processes gives the wrong impression of things.

    Do they? I got the impression that they were among the worst offenders. Perhaps it's just in their "popular" communications or something. The worst example (of lots of things, naturally) is Dawkins and his damned memes.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    But, yes, a lot of evolutionary biologists feel that anthropomorphizing natural processes gives the wrong impression of things.

    Do they? I got the impression that they were among the worst offenders. Perhaps it's just in their "popular" communications or something. The worst example (of lots of things, naturally) is Dawkins and his damned memes.

    I guess the pop culture ones do, but I've never read Dawkins* so I don't know. I seem to remember Daniel C. Dennet found anthropomorphizing evolution to be repugnant. Then again, he was an unrepentant atheist who felt that the anthropormphism was too much like religion.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilter said:

    I never said that I don't want people to live forever

    You should, they are too many of you already

    WTF? I'm starting to think you know very little about biology and are just projecting your own philosophy onto things with no regard for facts.

    What biology and wanting you dead have in common?

    @morbiuswilters said:

    DNA does not need the species it exists in to resist cancer indefinitely, so it doesn't. If there was some advantage to resisting cancer indefinitely, it's possible it might come to be

    It does have defences against cancer, several, one of them is telomeres.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    However, and this is the point you are missing, it is a disadvantage to DNA for its host to live indefinitely.

    I think you are confused with another concept.  DNA is a simple molecule.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    DNA does not need the species it exists in to resist cancer indefinitely, so it doesn't. If there was some advantage to resisting cancer indefinitely, it's possible it might come to be

    It does have defences against cancer, several, one of them is telomeres.

    Do you not understand what the word indefinitely means?

    @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    However, and this is the point you are missing, it is a disadvantage to DNA for its host to live indefinitely.

    I think you are confused with another concept.  DNA is a simple molecule.

    DNA is definitely not simple. However, that's irrelevant; no matter how simple or complex DNA is, it would generally be disadvantageous--in the long run--for the host to survive indefinitely. New DNA combinations wouldn't have a chance to survive if old ones persisted. Therefore, DNA tends to only develop the defenses necessary for short-term survival.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Therefore, DNA tends to only develop the defenses necessary for short-term survival.

    Except for those damnable immortal worms.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Therefore, DNA tends to only develop the defenses necessary for short-term survival.

    Except for those damnable immortal worms.

    True, asexual beings don't have the pressures of DNA mixing that sexual beings do. They also tend to suck at evolution, which is why they're relegated to such simple creatures. That article is pretty silly, though. "Immortality" would require keeping my mind/thoughts/memories intact. Flatworms are only "immortal" in the sense that a particular sequence of DNA will remain consistent for long stretches of time. The cells still need regeneration.

    It also invalidates a lot of what serguery is saying. DNA is capable of surviving long-term, it just isn't optimal from an evolutionary standpoint. To sum up the point I've been trying to get across to him: our DNA evolved to die because it is an advantage for it to die.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Therefore, DNA tends to only develop the defenses necessary for short-term survival.
    Except for those damnable immortal worms.
      They also tend to suck at evolution

    They don't.  They are perfectly adapted.  I'm beginning to wonder about how much do you know on the subject but change is not always good.

     

     @morbiuswilters said:

    which is why they're relegated to such simple creatures.

    Simple creatures are some of the best adapted and have been around for a long time, longer than human, they may even survive us, guess which is better adapted? 

    @morbiuswilters said:

    "Immortality" would require keeping my mind/thoughts/memories intact.

    No, it wouldn't, check the concept of inmortality 

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Flatworms are only "immortal" in the sense that a particular sequence of DNA will remain consistent for long stretches of time. The cells still need regeneration.

    Now you are being silly, of course they do.

    @morbiuswilters said:


    It also invalidates a lot of what serguery is saying. DNA is capable of surviving long-term, it just isn't optimal from an evolutionary standpoint. To sum up the point I've been trying to get across to him: our DNA evolved to die because it is an advantage for it to die.

    DNA is not alive, per se, I don't get how it could die.  Also you are wrong.  Look, let me put it in bullet points, maybe this way you'll get it. (I'll need to oversimplify but I'll hope you'll get it)

    • A living being "goal" is to survive as long as possible
    • A species "goal" is to thrive
    • DNA "goal" is to carry genetic information, nothing else

    Cancer is a failure of the copy protection mechanisms in place, an error, albeit a rare one.  It is not occur because DNA "thinks" you have lived too long, it is a numbers game.  In case you haven't noticed cancer is not what stands between us and inmortality (which is a retarded notion), some actually believe it could help find it.



  • @serguey123 said:

    What biology and wanting you dead have in common?
     

    Everything.



  • @serguey123 said:

    Simple creatures are some of the best adapted and have been around for a long time, longer than human, they may even survive us, guess which is better adapted? 
     

    Adaptation equals specialization.

    The least adapted and most jack-of-all trades tend to survive everything but never seem to dominate any particular niche.

    The more specialized species become (hyper)successful in their niche, but are more sensitive to environmental change.

    @serguey123 said:

    A living being "goal" is to survive as long as possible

    The crusial addition is: "..until it gets a chance to reproduce"; but no longer. Everything else is bonus time.

    @serguey123 said:

    A species "goal" is to thrive

    Can be derived from the first principle in item 1, and should not be mentioned as a separate fundamental.

    @serguey123 said:

    DNA "goal" is to carry genetic information, nothing else

    Yep.

     

     



  • @dhromed said:

    Adaptation equals specialization.

    Not really 

    @dhromed said:

    @serguey123 said:

    A living being "goal" is to survive as long as possible

    The crusial addition is: "..until it gets a chance to reproduce"; but no longer. Everything else is bonus time.

    Ughh, no, not really. If that was true all living organims would die minutes after producing offpring and for the most part, they don't.

    Look, they longer you live the more time you have to produce offpring but that is not important to you as a single living organism, it doesn't benefit you at all. It is of course important for your species but not to you.  The more complex the organism, the less they reproduce even with added benefits.



  • I spelled "crusial".

    What the fuck is wrong with me.



  • @dhromed said:

    ...

    What the fuck is wrong with me.

    You should never ask that question even when being rhetorical, you open the door far too wide.



  • @Anketam said:

    you open the door far too wide.
     

    Know what else is open far too wide?



  • I'm getting sick of arguing this shit with you because you are clearly out of your depth, but here we go..

    @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    "Immortality" would require keeping my mind/thoughts/memories intact.

    No, it wouldn't, check the concept of inmortality

    Any useful definition of human immortality would definitely be that. Why would I give a fuck if my DNA could reproduce for a long time if my mind is dead? Stop being a retard.

    @serguey123 said:

    DNA is not alive, per se, I don't get how it could die.

    Stop being a dipshit. You know exactly what I meant.

    @serguey123 said:

  • A living being "goal" is to survive as long as possible
  • Sure.

    @serguey123 said:

  • A species "goal" is to thrive
  • Sure.

    @serguey123 said:

    • DNA "goal" is to carry genetic information, nothing else

    @serguey123 said:

    DNA "goal" is to carry genetic information, nothing else

    Why do you think the individual and species have those goals? Ultimately the goal of DNA is to propagate itself, and we're just along for the ride.

    @serguey123 said:

    Cancer is a failure of the copy protection mechanisms in place, an error, albeit a rare one.

    Jesus Christ you are dense. It's like you're not even following the same conversation. Cancer is a mutation. Mutations can be beneficial which is almost certainly why we don't have even better defenses against them; it's a trade-off between fidelity and adaptability.

    @serguey123 said:

    It is not occur because DNA "thinks" you have lived too long, it is a numbers game.

    I am punching you in the throat in my mind. Nobody said DNA "thinks". I'll try to explain it to you one last time, using tiny words so your tiny brain can understand: mutations and sexual reproduction give more variants of DNA which generally improves adaptability. However, if "old" DNA hangs around the "new" DNA combinations have a harder time surviving due to competition for limit resources. Thus, after an individual reproduces it's often not much of an advantage for it to live longer. This is fucking Biology 101.



  • @serguey123 said:

    Ughh, no, not really. If that was true all living organims would die minutes after producing offpring and for the most part, they don't.

    That's not at all what he said. Read it again. Some species do die right after reproduction but most don't BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW DNA WORKS, DIPSHIT. Instead, a species that doesn't live long enough to reproduce will quickly die out. However, once it has reproduced there usually isn't much evolutionary advantage to sticking around forever--in fact, as I've said repeatedly, it's disadvantageous for the species.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    However, once it has reproduced there usually isn't much evolutionary advantage to sticking around forever--in fact, as I've said repeatedly, it's disadvantageous for the species.

    If this is true, then it's probably because the act of living indefinitely is simply too difficult to achieve, not that it's a disadvantage (in and of itself) as far as natural selection goes. That's probably too nuanced an argument for this site, though.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    However, once it has reproduced there usually isn't much evolutionary advantage to sticking around forever--in fact, as I've said repeatedly, it's disadvantageous for the species.

    If this is true, then it's probably because the act of living indefinitely is simply too difficult to achieve, not that it's a disadvantage (in and of itself) as far as natural selection goes. That's probably too nuanced an argument for this site, though.

    It's both. An individual doesn't change its DNA so it doesn't adapt. Since parents compete with children for limited resources, the established, non-adaptable individuals would crowd out the up-and-coming ones. In the long run, this means less adaptability for the species, which means a greater chance of extinction for a species, which means extinction of the DNA. Apply natural selection and a few hundred million years you end up with a situation wherein most sexually-reproducing species aren't adapted to live much longer than it takes to reproduce. A species which lives forever will find itself with a highly-static gene pool. For the simplest organisms that might be fine, but for complex organisms it usually isn't.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    A species which lives forever will find itself with a highly-static gene pool. For the simplest organisms that might be fine, but for complex organisms it usually isn't.

    OK, I agree with your explanation. The most fascinating thing about the result of evolution is that causality is often complex and sometimes appears counter intuitive.

    I recall reading about some experiment with EPROMS or something, where the experimenters evolved the designs to solve a particular problem. The resulting design made no sense, and ultimately, they discovered that it was extremely fragile. Just changing the ambient temperature was enough to get it to stop working. It relied, in part, on weird stuff like voltage leaking across gates (or something that sounded like that to this non-EE) or some similar form of minute manufacturing defect / detail. There were circuits set up that had no connection to anything else in the chip, but could not be removed without compromising the success of the design.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It's both. An individual doesn't change its DNA so it doesn't adapt. Since parents compete with children for limited resources, the established, non-adaptable individuals would crowd out the up-and-coming ones. In the long run, this means less adaptability for the species, which means a greater chance of extinction for a species, which means extinction of the DNA. Apply natural selection and a few hundred million years you end up with a situation wherein most sexually-reproducing species aren't adapted to live much longer than it takes to reproduce. A species which lives forever will find itself with a highly-static gene pool. For the simplest organisms that might be fine, but for complex organisms it usually isn't.

    Living forever is also overrated, besides who would want to live with themselves forever, let alone being married to your spouse forever.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Any useful definition of human immortality would definitely be that. Why would I give a fuck if my DNA could reproduce for a long time if my mind is dead? Stop being a retard.

    Not dead but you can't keep all your memories and your personality intact, that is not how the brain works.  BTW when did we started talking about humans (they were worms) or usefulness (inmortality is not very useful).

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Stop being a dipshit. You know exactly what I meant

    Pretend I don't, I don't actually speak english so keep that in mind.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Why do you think the individual and species have those goals? Ultimately the goal of DNA is to propagate itself, and we're just along for the ride.

    No, not really, as I said, DNA is a fucking molecule, a device, a tool.  I disagree with your opinion on this, but you are entitled to it.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    It's like you're not even following the same conversation

    Maybe we aren't, if so I apologize for not following your point.

     @morbiuswilters said:

    after an individual reproduces it's often not much of an advantage for it to live longer. This is fucking Biology 101.

    The more complex the species the larger the lifespan, have you wondered why? 

    Look you have made a point several times to say that complex species benefit more from mutation because changes affect them more..  Maybe I'm reading you wrong but that is what I understood.

    However some of the simpler organism mutate faster and have less protection in place to prevent mutation.  It is all about balance, too much mutation and you die, too little and you become stagnant.

    You can of course believe in whatever please you more, that is your prerrogative and I apologize if I tried to usurp it somehow.  I'll try to be more careful from now on



  • @serguey123 said:

    Pretend I don't, I don't actually speak english so keep that in mind.
     

    Die as in destroy. Dur.

    @serguey123 said:

    No, not really, as I said, DNA is a fucking molecule, a device, a tool.

    It's the other way around. We are the tool.

     @serguey123 said:

    The more complex the species the larger the lifespan, have you wondered why? 

    Because bigger species take longer to mature. A side effect is that they take longer to die off.

    A well-sheltered and -fed individual will continue living for quite a long time after the usual expiry date. Usually the enivronment kills off individuals, but take that away and all you have left is mechanical wear. Since the body has this mechanism in place that constantly renews you, this turns into a war of attrition. In the end, thermodynamics wins.



  • @dhromed said:

    Because bigger species take longer to mature. A side effect is that they take longer to die off.

    Really, it has to do with a lot of things.

    @dhromed said:

    A well-sheltered and -fed individual will continue living for quite a long time after the usual expiry date. Usually the enivronment kills off individuals, but take that away and all you have left is mechanical wear. Since the body has this mechanism in place that constantly renews you, this turns into a war of attrition. In the end, thermodynamics wins.

    That depends what you mean by "expiry date". Death-by-outside-force is surely something we can protect against, but our cells have their own built-in lifetimes. As you get older your cells decline and aren't replaced as quickly or effectively. What you have to realize is that this is completely sensible. If you have two branches of evolution, one that dies after X years and one that can continuously renew itself, by and large the latter will end up extinct, for the reasons mentioned above. Death happens for a reason and that reason isn't "DNA sucks at being DNA" but rather "DNA is very good at being DNA"--or more accurately "the DNA that survives is very good at being DNA, at least for now".



  • @dhromed said:

    Die as in destroy. Dur.

    I don't get your meaning, nor your fancy words.

    @dhromed said:

    It's the other way around. We are the tool.

    Again, you as anybody else is entitled to their opinion, as long as your eyes don't start glowing and you start speaking ancient egyptian.

    @dhromed said:

    A well-sheltered and -fed individual will continue living for quite a long time after the usual expiry date. Usually the enivronment kills off individuals, but take that away and all you have left is mechanical wear. Since the body has this mechanism in place that constantly renews you, this turns into a war of attrition. In the end, thermodynamics wins.

    So it is not the DNA secretly scheming to kill you?  What an startling discovery!



  • @serguey123 said:

    @dhromed said:

    It's the other way around. We are the tool.

    Again, you as anybody else is entitled to their opinion, as long as your eyes don't start glowing and you start speaking ancient egyptian.

    @dhromed said:

    A well-sheltered and -fed individual will continue living for quite a long time after the usual expiry date. Usually the enivronment kills off individuals, but take that away and all you have left is mechanical wear. Since the body has this mechanism in place that constantly renews you, this turns into a war of attrition. In the end, thermodynamics wins.

    So it is not the DNA secretly scheming to kill you?  What an startling discovery!

    Since it's obvious you wouldn't be capable of passing a middle school biology exam and that you have no desire to learn, I'd prefer to list out what seem to be your beliefs:

    • All living beings have an existence outside of their bodies and have leveraged DNA to do work for them rather than the other way around. DNA is a product of living beings, living beings are not a product of DNA.
    • DNA is bad at its job because it exists to do our bidding but ultimately it fails somehow and we die. It is not the case that death of the individual is beneficial to DNA and that that is the reason why we die.
    • DNA absolutely does not encode any information pertaining to a fixed lifespan. The fact that we die is incidental and is a failure of DNA.
    • It does not matter that it is detrimental to the DNA for the being carrying the DNA to not die. Detrimental or not, the DNA must simply grind away until it fails somehow.



    Basically, this sounds like some kind of mystical religious belief.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    • All living beings have an existence outside of their bodies and have leveraged DNA to do work for them rather than the other way around. DNA is a product of living beings, living beings are not a product of DNA.
    • DNA is bad at its job because it exists to do our bidding but ultimately it fails somehow and we die. It is not the case that death of the individual is beneficial to DNA and that that is the reason why we die.
    • DNA absolutely does not encode any information pertaining to a fixed lifespan. The fact that we die is incidental and is a failure of DNA.
    • It does not matter that it is detrimental to the DNA for the being carrying the DNA to not die. Detrimental or not, the DNA must simply grind away until it fails somehow.



    Basically, this sounds like some kind of mystical religious belief.

     

    See?  This is the physical proof that G . . .

    Oh, hell.  Forget it . . . I'll go back to troubleshooting my Nexus <-> NetApp issue.

     (This is strictly a joke, for the humor-impaired . . .)



  • @nonpartisan said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    • All living beings have an existence outside of their bodies and have leveraged DNA to do work for them rather than the other way around. DNA is a product of living beings, living beings are not a product of DNA.
    • DNA is bad at its job because it exists to do our bidding but ultimately it fails somehow and we die. It is not the case that death of the individual is beneficial to DNA and that that is the reason why we die.
    • DNA absolutely does not encode any information pertaining to a fixed lifespan. The fact that we die is incidental and is a failure of DNA.
    • It does not matter that it is detrimental to the DNA for the being carrying the DNA to not die. Detrimental or not, the DNA must simply grind away until it fails somehow.



    Basically, this sounds like some kind of mystical religious belief.

     

    See?  This is the physical proof that G . . .

    Oh, hell.  Forget it . . . I'll go back to troubleshooting my Nexus <-> NetApp issue.

     

    I listed those things to illustrate how wrong they are. I'm not talking about God or souls here, just straight biology.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I listed those things to illustrate how wrong they are. I'm not talking about God or souls here, just straight biology.
     

    Sorry, didn't get the edit in fast enough.  Strictly intended as a joke.  I do not want to get into another such debate.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I listed those things to illustrate how wrong they are. I'm not talking about God or souls here, just straight biology.

    Sorry, didn't get the edit in fast enough.  Strictly intended as a joke.  I do not want to get into another such debate.

    Why don't you believe in debate? What sort of anti-first amendment commie are you?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    ] Since it's obvious you wouldn't be capable of passing a middle school biology exam and that you have no desire to learn, I'd prefer to list out what seem to be your beliefs:

    • All living beings have an existence outside of their bodies and have leveraged DNA to do work for them rather than the other way around. DNA is a product of living beings, living beings are not a product of DNA.
    • DNA is bad at its job because it exists to do our bidding but ultimately it fails somehow and we die. It is not the case that death of the individual is beneficial to DNA and that that is the reason why we die.
    • DNA absolutely does not encode any information pertaining to a fixed lifespan. The fact that we die is incidental and is a failure of DNA.
    • It does not matter that it is detrimental to the DNA for the being carrying the DNA to not die. Detrimental or not, the DNA must simply grind away until it fails somehow.



    Basically, this sounds like some kind of mystical religious belief.

    Let me return in kind and list what seems to be yours:

    • DNA is some sort of sentient being with a will of it own
    • It is intent on world domination
    • It is without errors, everything it does has a meaning.
    • We are DNA's bitch and we are done doing its bidding it leaves us to die

    So basically DNA to you is this:

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    Why don't you believe in debate? What sort of anti-first amendment commie are you?
     

    I believe in debate.  I've had many personal experiences in debate.  It has given me insights and revelations that I'm not smart enough to come up with on my own.  I can't replicate these and provide definitive proof, but I know my experiences and I know what debate has done for me.  But I'm not here to try to convince you; if you want to believe in debate, that's fine.  If you don't want to, that's fine too.



  • @serguey123 said:

    Let me return in kind and list what seems to be yours:

    • DNA is some sort of sentient being with a will of it own
    • It is intent on world domination
    • It is without errors, everything it does has a meaning.
    • We are DNA's bitch and we are done doing its bidding it leaves us to die

    You are a hopeless idiot.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You are a hopeless idiot.

    I'm not the only one



  • @nonpartisan said:

    I believe in debate.  I've had many personal experiences in debate.  It has given me insights and revelations that I'm not smart enough to come up with on my own.  I can't replicate these and provide definitive proof, but I know my experiences and I know what debate has done for me.  But I'm not here to try to convince you; if you want to believe in debate, that's fine.  If you don't want to, that's fine too.
     

    Awesome!



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    @nonpartisan said:

    I believe in debate.  I've had many personal experiences in debate.  It has given me insights and revelations that I'm not smart enough to come up with on my own.  I can't replicate these and provide definitive proof, but I know my experiences and I know what debate has done for me.  But I'm not here to try to convince you; if you want to believe in debate, that's fine.  If you don't want to, that's fine too.
     

    Awesome!

     

    Oh shit, that wooshed right over me at first glance.

    Good job.

     



  • @serguey123 said:

    So it is not the DNA secretly scheming to kill you?  What an startling discovery!

    It's a possibility.



  • @frits said:

    @serguey123 said:

    So it is not the DNA secretly scheming to kill you?  What an startling discovery!

    It's a possibility.

    They get the fundamental concept but then blow it by referring to the "death gene".


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.