Gamma Doubts
Gammas never recognize when others are not bluffing
5.3 Sigmas is another way to express the confidence level that the core argument of MITTENS is correct and the evolutionary Modern Synthesis is mathematically imossible. As I promised the Gamma who falsely claimed that my definitions and calculations were “utterly vague”, I have now provided them, in substantive detail, to a level that has never, ever, been seen before in the field of evolutionary biology in the last 160 years, in Probability Zero.
Not only that, but since JF Gariepy tried unsuccessfully to appeal to parallel fixation six years ago to evade its conclusions, not a single person has been able to either a) find an error in MITTENS or b) suggest an alternative mechanism that might substitute for the failure of natural selection. It’s all been addressed, including parallel fixation, Neutral Theory, genetic drift, ILS, conditional regulatory changes, phenotypic plasticity, developmental reorganization, and polygenic frequency shifts.
So let’s recall how the Gamma tried to poison the well.
None of that is stated in the text. I’m not going to use AI to have to infer what an author is trying to say. And in a book about the decay of science of all things.
I absolutely encourage you not to read the book because you’re too retarded for it. I left out all the derivation and the definitions from the excerpt on a non-technical blog because there is no need to prove anything here. On a blog. Which is not the book itself.
Gammas...
Incoherent babble.
When a superior intelligence precisely explains the situation and you label it as incoherent babble, you’ve proven to everyone else you are not smart enough for the discussion.
The problem is nothing is precise. Vox has been utterly vague in his claims for several years now. Attempts by myself and others in other forums to get him to pin down his definitions and calculations have always ended this same way. If it was just me then fine, but it’s *several* others and we’ve been in contact. We are actual trained mathematicians and engineers.
I’m perfectly capable of following and evaluating the math and the models. I know other people who are also waiting for this book to come out so we can finally go through his calculations and claims in detail. But nothing he’s presented so far is encouraging that it won’t be more of his same.
What do you think the MITTENS equation is? And where, precisely, is its flaw? Using the old numbers will do. We’ve gone way, way beyond that now, but you can’t even imagine what we’ve done. No one could have.
Show me your previous post where you define everything clearly and precisely enough to allow comment.
My previous post? There are dozens of posts, at least 3 Darkstreams, and a public debate with JF Gariepy on his channel, as well as a transcript of it. And you’re whining that I didn’t provide the whole excerpt from the forthcoming book?
None of these clearly explained your arguments. As I’ve said here, a *number* of people have the same issue with your claims. They never go beyond claims.
Notice the Gamma’s goalpost shift.
First he demands Vox provide a singular explanatory post on the subject. When informed there are a large number of posts and streams, he blanketly dismisses them all as unclear. Despite posing as a critical expert, he is obviously arguing from ignorance.
An actual critic would be familiar with those writings and be able to raise specific flaws. An actually curious person would look into the information he overlooked. There’s enough there to take an afternoon or two to catch up.
Only the dishonest Gamma would make an ignorant and invalid judgement that the posts he did not read are unclear.
I’ve read the “large number of posts and streams.” As have the others. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, he doesn’t explain his work in a single one of them. Just general assertions with zero presented analysis. All of us who’ve read it are in agreement with this. You have definite difficulties in comprehension. Have you suffered head trauma recently or is it just in your nature? I’m guessing the later.
I’ve actually read and watched, unlike you. He does explain MITTENS. You are lying.
Show me the material, then. You don’t because you can’t. It doesn’t exist.
Of course it does. There is the material right there. The #1 bestseller in Biology, Genetics, and Evolution. 334 pages worth, supported by no less than 12 original science papers and endorsed by over a dozen mathematicians and physicists, including the physics legend and textbook author Frank J. Tipler.
I found it absolutely comical that the Gamma was publicly insisting that MITTENS was opaque and that I hadn’t actually stated any claims, as MITTENS is not only straight arithmetic that is just scratching the tip of the iceberg that is Probability Zero, which also includes the selection coefficient that corrects the traditional fixation models, empirical evidence for Haldane’s substitution limit, Bernoulli’s Barrier against Neutral Theory, Ulam’s Law, and several other original contributions to mathematical, empirical biology as opposed to the science fiction being written by Richard Dawkins, Yuval Harari, and other fantasists.
He can’t say I didn’t warn him. But this is a very common problem with Gammas. They’re so accustomed to bluffing, and getting away with it, that they truly can’t recognize when other people aren’t.
Sir Hamster, completly dismissing the gamma and going straight to explaining behavioral patterns is by far the most entertaining part of this post. People need more public gamma dismantling
Calling Dawkins a science fiction author is very kind. I had him pegged as romantasy.