Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[Goat]

First of all I would like to suggest some ground rules about how we must run the show, if you dont mind;

1. DO NOT, I repeat do not misinterpret any of my arguments or answers to any questions, that you may think offending or otherwise, as a personal attack or a revenge to get even for pointing that you are wrong or you are right. Since we do not see each other physically - no facial expressions, tonal pitches and body languages that will support your communication to be either a sarcastic critic or simply a plain natural truth of your claims, then let us just be civil in any situations.

2. if we refer a citations, a literature or some simple quotes, please do not use any links that will direct me to a website or a book that you want me to read first, to support yourself or your arguments. Just like the way i will convince you that the theory I have read and supported is feasible, i will backed it up completely with the author’s ideas, previous ideas or my ideas. please do likewise.

3. finally, let us make this debate as friendly as possible. you might be pros or cons about the theory, you might be right or I might be wrong, but at the end of the day just think it this way - we are great minds who just love to express our thoughts and exercise our ideas to its fullest – and everything else is simply a matter of opinion.

Since everyone here could probably been in a debate or discussion sites like this, obviously there are a lot of arguments that will be experienced. And arguments always come along with fallacies. The most common are;

1. appeal to authority – we use lines like; ‘Who are you to tell me that your theory is correct.’ ‘Your theory is wrong because a doctorate in physics or a famous quote said it so.’ ‘Do you belong to any organization that peer reviewed your theory’ You are not an expert so why do we have to listen’

2. hasty generalization – this is a form of stereotyping which is common to people who just believe or disbelieve on what was said or what was written, without getting into the details or facts and simply making abrupt conclusion or assumption

3. weak analogy – not all doctors of science are correct, there are just a few of them who evolve with flying colors. And since it is his work [most of the times can not be understood by many], his theory, his procedures, his research and his conclusion – even though their experiments are duplicated all around the world by their own peers, take note it is not the religious groups, or the atheist group or the non technical group but their own group– it does not mean his works are accepted universally. And analogy is not science. It is simply a parallelism without any relevance at all unless the analogy is an example of a fact or a reality.

so let us forget about all kinds of these fallacies and move forward since in the first place they are merely fallacies or defects in an arguments, that are often used by some people, which are totally irrelevant to the main topic of discussions.

Maybe we can start exchanging views – pros and cons- about this theory of family pairing or family duality.

The theory states that during the birth of the universe there are two lifeforms called space[presence of something] and nabse[absence of nothing] that coexisted to create ‘the’ families of anything known to man and beyond. Scientists must think differently about the origin of evolution by [a] knowing the process of creations and that the fingerprints of life can not be a single entity but a combination of two.

Ground rules.. how about some evidence? Let's see a reference to a peer reviewed article that says it is an actual scientific theory, rather than just some strange ideas that use some 'scientific' terms in a religious manner. So far, your description sounds religious in nature.

[body&soul]

It is a misconception that we generated from a single to an evolutionary leap of multicelled organism - from asexual to sexual. I have logical proof that microbiologists are wrong and the simple reason is:

If our ancestors are made of a single cell, to this day we will still have the same attributes that the first amoebas had during the primodial era. There might be a very slight change in our features, but the fact there is no recombination of genes, not like sexual reproduction which calls for two parents to produce an offspring , we would still be almost intact until today and would really look like an amoeba. And obviously the multi-celled organism will not evolved at all too.


On the other hand if you claim that there is no duality involved in asexual reproduction YOu are totally wrong. Asexual reproduction has a process called binary fusion. It tells us that in order to evolve in this kind of family, there are two objects that must exist. This asexual reproduction is a method that involves the splitting of a parent cell into two equal -sized offsprings,each with a copy of the parent's genetic material. A genetic characteristics that might stay like that forever in time if there were no multi-celled that evolve hand in hand with this single celled.

So it just tells us that the family duality theory is a theory of everything. Applying the theory based on reproduction. The family is made of asexual and sexual partnership. They follow the seven rules of creation. From this family of duality, different families will evolve. It could be heterosexuality which is attraction to the opposite sex, homosexuality which is attraction to the same sex, bisexualitywhich is attraction to both, and asexuality which is attraction to neither sex.And by the way, some species alternate between the sexual and asexual methods, they call it heterogamy.

Need more proof?

[byofrcs]

It is a misconception that we generated from a single to an evolutionary leap of multicelled organism - from asexual to sexual. I have logical proof that microbiologists are wrong and the simple reason is:

If our ancestors are made of a single cell, to this day we will still have the same attributes that the first amoebas had during the primodial era. There might be a very slight change in our features, but the fact there is no recombination of genes, not like sexual reproduction which calls for two parents to produce an offspring , we would still be almost intact until today and would really look like an amoeba. And obviously the multi-celled organism will not evolved at all too.

Explain how bacteria and virus mutate. They don't have sex and yet they become different. What you are suggesting is that bacteria and virus would never change which we know is not true.

Now with some diseases we get them or can be vaccinated for them and this is the case (e.g. Polio, Chickpox or Smallpox) but with others it is not the case; the virus or bacteria changes (common cold and say examples like MRSA or extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB)).

On the other hand if you claim that there is no duality involved in asexual reproduction YOu are totally wrong. Asexual reproduction has a process called binary fusion. It tells us that in order to evolve in this kind of family, there are two objects that must exist. This asexual reproduction is a method that involves the splitting of a parent cell into two equal -sized offsprings,each with a copy of the parent's genetic material. A genetic characteristics that might stay like that forever in time if there were no multi-celled that evolve hand in hand with this single celled.

Now the problem I feel you have is that you are assuming equals with the idea of sexual reproduction where in fact with bacteria, there are a number of mechanisms for altering the genetic structure.

The process of bacteria using transduction is not your typical nuclear family but vectored via a virus/bacteriophages. This isn't a duality but needs three separate entities.

Then there is the process of transformation in which foreign genetic material is picked up. In this way you have no idea where the DNA came from. It too is not nice happy nuclear family duality but more trailer-trash.

So these two processes above are not duality as you are suggesting.

So it just tells us that the family duality theory is a theory of everything. Applying the theory based on reproduction. The family is made of asexual and sexual partnership. They follow the seven rules of creation. From this family of duality, different families will evolve. It could be heterosexuality which is attraction to the opposite sex, homosexuality which is attraction to the same sex, bisexualitywhich is attraction to both, and asexuality which is attraction to neither sex.And by the way, some species alternate between the sexual and asexual methods, they call it heterogamy.

Need more proof?

Finally lets look at Portuguese Man o' War (a Siphonophorae). We've probably all met these creatures either washed ashore or when diving and fishing. These are made up of separate specialist organisms. One of which is the eudoxids which detaches from the colony and thus reproduction is vectored through a separate entity. At least that's how I think it is.

Other colonial organisms also make a mess of this nice idea of duality.

Yes. Lets recap,

I google for "the seven rules of creation" in double quotes and Google comes back with no hits.

I google for "family pairing theory" and again I get no hits. Not a good start.

Now I do google for "family duality theory" and I get 6 hits, none of which can be considered to be remotely peer reviewed, scientific, or scholarly. They are probably you cross-posting.

Forget appeals to authority, there is nothing to even judge this except what you say. This isn't an issue of authority, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please elaborate.

So what you say makes little sense given I have shown,

- Organisms that need 3 to make a family through one mechanism,
- Organisms who have no idea what the other partner is,
- Organisms who are a group hug of different organisms to create another organism who then gets it on,

So given all that, your theory (and it is ONLY your theory) sounds like crap when you try and stretch it to apply to all of creation.

[byofrcs]

......

2. if we refer a citations, a literature or some simple quotes, please do not use any links that will direct me to a website or a book that you want me to read first, to support yourself or your arguments. Just like the way i will convince you that the theory I have read and supported is feasible, i will backed it up completely with the author’s ideas, previous ideas or my ideas. please do likewise.

I noticed this book. You can rest assured that I will never expect you to read this and I also expect that you do not want us to read this too and that I won't recommend that anyone else read it too ?

Thank goodness that is settled because anyone who has looked at computers knows that huge numbers of connections are tristate i.e. 0, 1 and a high impedance state. People also know that many signals we use are analogue and we quantise them to binary to allow for better noise immunity.

Then there are ideograms and hieroglyphs. These are not letters you can easily pair like A->Z in some form of "logistically positioned to coexist as partners" and yet ideograms and hieroglyphs are a written language.

I detect a hint of commercial SPAMming here. Especially given the edits to Wikipedia, here and in which I googled for 'nabse "absence of nothing"' and got 5 hits.

[body&soul]

How to approach the theory of family duality;

1. Engrave this in your mind; everything you see and don’t see evolve.
2. To find the alter pair of any thing you want to match, ask this question; what family do you belong to or who are your original parents
3. Evolution creates a very complex of families that sometimes you automatically prejudge that a very extraordinary family cannot exist at all [e.g. non-life to life].

I will use the family called human beings as an example to how to approach;

What/Who is the duality or alterpair of byofrcs? So the first thing that you should do is classify byofrcs? Is byofrcs an asexual organism, a werewolf or a human being? You found out that byorfrcs is a human being. So byorfrcs belongs to the family called Homo Sapiens. At the same time beto, mcculloch, goat, fisherking belong to the same family of human specie. So who is the alterpair of byorfrcs? It could be the goat, beto or any body else. Did you get the picture now? Again this "analogy" is a factual evidence of duality!


I am not a biologist, but I assure you that if you follow how to approach the theory of duality you will think twice and maybe 'analyze?'

Impedance is a resistance. In order that o and 1 will flow it needs a medium - a cable as an example. But it does not mean that cables belong to the family of 0 and 1, but they are related in someway. The cable could be of a different family like a pipe, a wrapper, air, water or anything that connects the two. It could be like the organizational structure called family.

By the way can you elaborate more on the following statements that you raised by either examples with a complete description or analogy at the least if you cannot explain it clearly;
- Organisms that need 3 to make a family through one mechanism, [what are these 3 and what mechanism are you talking about, how does this mechanism works]
- Organisms who have no idea what the other partner is, [what are these organisms]
- Organisms who are a group hug of different organisms to create another organism who then gets it on, [can you elaborate more of this so I will not call it a hearsay just like how you understand impedance]


"The universe evolved from nothing and something; and has most of this elemental duality until now."...Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin.

[byofrcs]

....the theory of family duality...
...
1. Engrave this in your mind; everything you see and don’t see evolve.
2. To find the alter pair of any thing you want to match, ask this question; what family do you belong to or who are your original parents
3. Evolution creates a very complex of families that sometimes you automatically prejudge that a very extraordinary family cannot exist at all [e.g. non-life to life].

Careful - evolution doesn't create but it is the theory used to explain. Evolution also doesn't care about non-life -> life transition (abiogenesis).

I will use the family called human beings as an example to how to approach;

What/Who is the duality or alterpair of byofrcs? So the first thing that you should do is classify byofrcs? Is byofrcs an asexual organism, a werewolf or a human being? You found out that byorfrcs is a human being. So byorfrcs belongs to the family called Homo Sapiens. At the same time beto, mcculloch, goat, fisherking belong to the same family of human specie. So who is the alterpair of byorfrcs? It could be the goat, beto or any body else. Did you get the picture now? Again this "analogy" is a factual evidence of duality!

Well other than you claimed that "To find the alter pair of any thing you want to match, ask this question; what family do you belong to or who are your original parents" and now you are claiming that it is simply set membership that makes for an alter pair.

So what is it? Parental relationships or set membership ? In the immediate parents I can assure you that AFAIK none of those people mentioned is relate to me. Is this one or many generations that we go back to ? Do we go back to common ancestors of many millions of years ago ?

Or are you are saying is that the existence of a set that has more than 1 member is evidence of duality ?

Nope, sorry still don't get it.

I am not a biologist, but I assure you that if you follow how to approach the theory of duality you will think twice and maybe 'analyze?'

I'm thinking hard but nothing is coming out. I'm trying to think in sets, families, analogies, but it just doesn't gel.

Impedance is a resistance. In order that o and 1 will flow it needs a medium - a cable as an example. But it does not mean that cables belong to the family of 0 and 1, but they are related in someway. The cable could be of a different family like a pipe, a wrapper, air, water or anything that connects the two. It could be like the organizational structure called family.

No, impedance is impedance and resistance is resistance. Don't get sloppy with terms when you are talking about transmission lines.

My point with the computer analogy which you are pushing is that you use 0 and 1 like some magic mantra but it isn't that in many practical cases. To reliably transmit over a transmission line you don't send binary or 0 and 1 but send a signal suitable for that transmission line and then modulate that. Sending 0 and 1s down a line just doesn't work unless you are talking low frequencies like a power on/off switch.

Only the most simplistic of examples are on and off. Reality is a lot more complex and it is analogue.

By the way can you elaborate more on the following statements that you raised by either examples with a complete description or analogy at the least if you cannot explain it clearly;

- Organisms that need 3 to make a family through one mechanism, [what are these 3 and what mechanism are you talking about, how does this mechanism works]
- Organisms who have no idea what the other partner is, [what are these organisms]
- Organisms who are a group hug of different organisms to create another organism who then gets it on, [can you elaborate more of this so I will not call it a hearsay just like how you understand impedance]

I did actual provide enough. Why not just google for more details given I did provide the key words you needed. If you had read what I had said then you would know what each of those meant but I'll explain,

The organism that needs 3 to make a family are the bacteria that through transduction uses a bacteriophages as vectors. One bacteria, another bacteria and the vector who does the transfer. The keywords to google for are "transduction" and "bacteriophages".

* In no reasonable way are the bacteria and virus in the same family and therefore your duality example fails.

The organisms that have no idea what DNA they pick up are again bacteria who through a process called transformation are able to transfer plasmids.

* There is no presumption that the plasmids are from the same bacteria as far as I know. Thus this is like genetic material from one animal moving to another. Again your duality examples start to fail.

And finally there are the colonial animals in which I mentioned Siphonophorae and the eudoxids. Pretty obvious to me that this is a case of multiple entities creating one entity and then part of that one entity drops off to work on more entities.

* This craps all over your duality.

[body&soul]

You are correct in saying that evolution does not create. But creation creates evolution. That is why the book of Creation by Laws speaks a natural planned programming to effect creation.

Scientists try to support the theory about evolution but they have never thought that the first thing that they need to do is to:
1. Define what is creation? (and not evolution)
2. How does creation process evolution?
3. What are the requirements or I call “planned programming� needed to commence creation?

You are wrong in saying that evolution does not care non-life. If you have not read any scientific journals, then I will believe in your opinion, but if you do then check what kind of literature do you have (it is from the atheist point of view or other organization or group?). Scientists’ main concern is: what is the missing link that will connect non-life to life in the evolutionary process. If they can not prove this, then the thoery of big bang is not true. And religion gets another point. Howevre, they have proven this already but not yet widely accepted. on the other hand, the theory of Family Pairing can explain this misrepresented “missing link�.

The theory of family duality is a concept of pairing, a two of something where you have the first and the alter pair. This pair can be anybody, anything that belongs to a family or a group. It can be two letters, two numbers, two organism or two of anything. Once these pairs interact naturally or artificially, the evolution process will take place by following a 7 preplanned programming called the Family Life Cycle or called Laws of Creation.

Now do not be confused about the word duality is all that matters, because since everything evolves, the duality concept of creation also evolves into triality, quadility and so forth and so on. If I can explain the very least of this partnership, which is made up of two individuals, then all other groupings or families can be explained.

“The organism that needs 3 to make a family are the bacteria that through transduction uses a bacteriophages as vectors. One bacteria, another bacteria and the vector who does the transfer. “

So you just answered your question. In your example there are two bacterias that will process evolution and the transfer is a process not a bacteria. And if so happened (assuming) that 3 bacterias are needed to call it a family, then so be it. But if you try to dissect this family into the least pairing, meaning in duality, you will find it by following the approach of detecting their original parent. By the way, DNA is a pairing system too.

Show me your formula about impedance with its complete correct units of measurement and if there are also conversations of units please provide them too. I will prove to you that impedance is a resistance.

“Siphonophores are extraordinarily complex colonial organisms. The individuals composing the colony - modified polyps and medusae - are highly polymorphic and adapted to their specific function.

Based on worms ( a website), siphonophores belong to a family Hydroidomedusa. In this family of Hydroidomedusa, there are other 6 species that belong to this group. And it looks like that Siphono is made up of polyps and medusae, a duality?

On the other hand, I can see that siphonophores and hydroidomedusa belongs to the family Animalia, if your classification of species are the same as how I classify my “species�, then the pair or duality of animalia can be a fungi, a monera, a plantae, or protoctista. If you are a microbiologists maybe you can classify these organisms or species based on pairing just like how physicists classify things.

A good example are the different kinds of energies namely: mechanical, electrical, electronics, nuclear to name a few. By itself they all have a family of their own. However, all these types of energies are offsprings that belong to a higher pairing of potential and kinetic energy partnership – a family called energy.

Google was a good search engine before but nowadays there concentration is more on advertisement. I can not find eudoxids. So I do not know what it is and can not give you any answers. I try to search for hydroidomedusa’s system of evolving, but I can not find one too. If you can explain them here, I will try my best to answer you.

[byofrcs]

OK body&soul, firstly, please quote my text if you use it as I quote you. I consider this to be a copyright issue. This is important.

You are correct in saying that evolution does not create. But creation creates evolution. That is why the book of Creation by Laws speaks a natural planned programming to effect creation.

So you are proposing Theistic Evolution. There is nothing wrong with that, well other than the lack of evidence for God.

Scientists try to support the theory about evolution but they have never thought that the first thing that they need to do is to:

They do not try to support the theory, it is already well supported. There is no "try", but just a huge and growing pool of evidence.

Actually the case is that some religious folk try to support the theory about creation, and fail dismally.

But do go on.....

1. Define what is creation? (and not evolution)
2. How does creation process evolution?
3. What are the requirements or I call “planned programming� needed to commence creation?

You are wrong in saying that evolution does not care non-life. If you have not read any scientific journals, then I will believe in your opinion, but if you do then check what kind of literature do you have (it is from the atheist point of view or other organization or group?). Scientists’ main concern is: what is the missing link that will connect non-life to life in the evolutionary process. If they can not prove this, then the thoery of big bang is not true. And religion gets another point. Howevre, they have proven this already but not yet widely accepted. on the other hand, the theory of Family Pairing can explain this misrepresented “missing link�.

No I am right that Evolution stops when we hit the non-life to life boundary. Sure there will be cross-discipline scientists but they are rare.

The mechanisms below that is that of organic chemicals and is the realm of chemistry. These are separate disciplines and though genetic algorithms probably apply to organic chemistry, the Theory Of Evolution predicts and explains the origin of species, not chemical compounds.

Equally, the realm of organic chemistry is not a discipline that answers questions on astrophysics and nucleosynthesis. No amount of Evolutionary Theory, or organic chemistry explains the big bang and it has never claimed it could.

You are being somewhat illogical by using the gap in knowledge of the precise mechanisms that happened between the spontaneous formation of organic chemicals and replicating RNA or virus as refuting the Big Bang.

We know that organic chemicals of quite complex numbers of atoms form spontaneously. We also know of mechanisms to select these (chirality). Given that we have a non-creation step which anyone can reproduce and many have in labs and in tests globally, then we need not worry about events before these happen.

In the end, your "theory of Family Pairing" explains nothing unless you explain it here and you are failing to do this.

The theory of family duality is a concept of pairing, a two of something where you have the first and the alter pair. This pair can be anybody, anything that belongs to a family or a group. It can be two letters, two numbers, two organism or two of anything. Once these pairs interact naturally or artificially, the evolution process will take place by following a 7 preplanned programming called the Family Life Cycle or called Laws of Creation.

Now do not be confused about the word duality is all that matters, because since everything evolves, the duality concept of creation also evolves into triality, quadility and so forth and so on. If I can explain the very least of this partnership, which is made up of two individuals, then all other groupings or families can be explained.

Oh, so it's n-way now. Why didn't you say that in the very first posting instead of slowly inventing this as you go along ?

“The organism that needs 3 to make a family are the bacteria that through transduction uses a bacteriophages as vectors. One bacteria, another bacteria and the vector who does the transfer. “

So you just answered your question. In your example there are two bacterias that will process evolution and the transfer is a process not a bacteria. And if so happened (assuming) that 3 bacterias are needed to call it a family, then so be it. But if you try to dissect this family into the least pairing, meaning in duality, you will find it by following the approach of detecting their original parent. By the way, DNA is a pairing system too.

Given you've just added 3-way and 4-way to the equation Then this is now irrelevant. Also, not that it matters as you've moved the goal-posts, I did not say that it needs 3 bacteria but that it needs a bacteriophages which is a virus. OK ?

Next time please present all information germane to the discussion and I think the emphasis on pairing and duality and binary was misleading because when offered examples that needed 3 or more then you suddenly expand 2-way to also means 3 and 4-way systems.

Show me your formula about impedance with its complete correct units of measurement and if there are also conversations of units please provide them too. I will prove to you that impedance is a resistance.

impedance is made up of a resistance AND a reactance. Obviously they are different, you can't pass DC through a capacitor for very long but AC will pass through. I raised this issue because you were talking about transmission lines. Given you talk about computers and stuff in examples then you should know about reactance.

“Siphonophores are extraordinarily complex colonial organisms. The individuals composing the colony - modified polyps and medusae - are highly polymorphic and adapted to their specific function.

Based on worms ( a website), siphonophores belong to a family Hydroidomedusa. In this family of Hydroidomedusa, there are other 6 species that belong to this group. And it looks like that Siphono is made up of polyps and medusae, a duality?

On the other hand, I can see that siphonophores and hydroidomedusa belongs to the family Animalia, if your classification of species are the same as how I classify my “species�, then the pair or duality of animalia can be a fungi, a monera, a plantae, or protoctista. If you are a microbiologists maybe you can classify these organisms or species based on pairing just like how physicists classify things.

This is not relevant because you've changed the goalposts.

Again you have lost me on this "pair or duality" business. It seems to be a catch-all to grab anything and join it to something else to satisfy your pet theory.

A good example are the different kinds of energies namely: mechanical, electrical, electronics, nuclear to name a few. By itself they all have a family of their own. However, all these types of energies are offsprings that belong to a higher pairing of potential and kinetic energy partnership – a family called energy.

I think you've establised that it doesn't matter how many kinds of 'x' are involved because everything can be arbitrarily grouped to satisfy your theory into one family.

Your theory is simply that everything can be arbitrarily grouped. This is the kind of imprecise nonsense that we would expect from spiritualist tracts.

Personally I think you are here to pump your neologisms. This is commercial spam.

[body&soul]

Well if you think it so, just like some of the forums and discussions boards, well so be it. They have used this “spam� word again and again to get rid of themselves out of their pit of lack of experiences and probably intelligence. I presumed that brilliant people hang out in forums like this, that is open into all sort of discussions – but it looks like that some are just like any breed of wannabees-to be-genius-kind-of-thing. I can see that medieval history repeats itself. I am again condemned and prosecuted as a� witch�, by those “people who still think that the earth is still flat�. I rest my case.

But seriously I learned a lot from you guys and I say thank you. Words like combinationics and chirality were all new words to me. And these areas are concepts that support my theory of family pairing at the least. Thanks byofrcs. BTW, impedance, reactance, resistance belong to the family of friction ( a resisting force). They have a common unit neologistically(lolz) named "ohms" which was derived from a basic ancestral formula called ohm's law. You are also correct in saying that everything can be grouped BUT (and I would like to emphasize) according to a common attribute. This family grouping will lead you to the Grand Family of Everything (Space & nabse Duality). Also all the things that you claimed "irrelevant or invented" are all already explained in the book Creation By Laws - a planned programming for all things in the universe and beyond where duality is just the first "algorithmic statement in a procedure".

To all readers, Evolution is NOT stupid, and god is just a part of evolution too. Goodbye and thank you. Sayonara.

[byofrcs]

Well if you think it so, just like some of the forums and discussions boards, well so be it. They have used this “spam� word again and again to get rid of themselves out of their pit of lack of experiences and probably intelligence. I presumed that brilliant people hang out in forums like this, that is open into all sort of discussions – but it looks like that some are just like any breed of wannabees-to be-genius-kind-of-thing. I can see that medieval history repeats itself. I am again condemned and prosecuted as a� witch�, by those “people who still think that the earth is still flat�. I rest my case.

Don't be disingenuous, because in an author it makes you look arrogant. You've given up not because of us but because you have failed to support your claims with anything that looks like a coherent argument.

You have failed to debate and you don't want to learn. I'm happy to accept you are new but you've written a book so your skills should be above average and you should be willing to debate the topic that you expect people to put their hard earned money down to buy. This is why it is arrogant for an author to presume they are right without dispute.

But seriously I learned a lot from you guys and I say thank you. Words like combinationics and chirality were all new words to me. And these areas are concepts that support my theory of family pairing at the least. Thanks byofrcs.

No one mentioned "combinationics". I mention chirality and I'm stunned that someone who is trying to invent a new theory and has written a book on duality and trying to match things up hasn't come across chirality given it is the underlying system of mirror images across chemicals and life.

BTW, impedance, reactance, resistance belong to the family of friction ( a resisting force). They have a common unit neologistically(lolz) named "ohms" which was derived from a basic ancestral formula called ohm's law.

Why do you call ohms a neologism ? Anyway ohms law shows up three things that cannot be logically grouped, current, voltage and resistance except through ohms law. Is this the family of duality in action ?

But what is the common attribute ? Is it ohms law ? But it would be possible to show a common attribute with everything from a pound of feathers to a pound of lead - they are still a pound.

You are also correct in saying that everything can be grouped BUT (and I would like to emphasize) according to a common attribute. This family grouping will lead you to the Grand Family of Everything (Space & nabse Duality). Also all the things that you claimed "irrelevant or invented" are all already explained in the book Creation By Laws - a planned programming for all things in the universe and beyond where duality is just the first "algorithmic statement in a procedure".

To all readers, Evolution is NOT stupid, and god is just a part of evolution too. Goodbye and thank you. Sayonara.

To "body&soul", it looks like calling your bluff on the SPAM worked in that you now want to move on because you make claims you cannot easily support. You could have had a chance of getting some sales but anyway I guess goodbye and thanks for saving us the bother of having to read your book.