| Subject: Re: WORST CASE SCENARIO |
| From: "Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> |
| Date: 16/10/2004, 18:51 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.physics,alt.sci.seti,sci.environment,talk.religion.newage,talk.atheism |
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <crackpots@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:4170A31B.D295AD2F@everywhere.net...
October 16, 2004
"Tim K." wrote:
Mass extinctions are
one of the most probable causes of these rapid bursts of evolution.
Dumbass, extinction does not cause evolution. Extinct means they
don't
exist anymore.
extinction opens niches
dinosaurs all died off
and there was an explosion of evolution for mammals
You somewhat redeem yourself.
No, he demonstrates you to be some kind of arrogant idiot.
He was making the same point as I, although in a far less technical way.
First, you claim that the 2004 Atlantic Hurricane season was not
particularly
intense, contrary to the evidence :
When did I make that claim and in what words exactly?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/figure8.gif
Then you claim that inflation adjusted hurricane damage estimates are not
quantifiable metrics, contrary to the evidence :
I'll try to explain it again - if you adjust for nothing more than inflation
you aren't taking the unbelievable increase in real-estate (and thus a far
greater probability of damage) on the beaches into account, and that makes
you guilty of junk metrics. I do metrics for a living asshole, don't tell
me my business.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/USdmg/
Finally, you claim that extinction is not a process of natural selection
and
evolution, and that evolution is specific to biological systems.
I made no such claim. This is you spinning what I wrote.
Deal with it, fuckwit.