No, actually you shat on the entire thread, like you always do.
It is simply impossible to have any meaningful discussions with you around.
And you wonder why you’ve been banned from 14 forums, or whatever the number was.
You’re not being persecuted. You just suck.
Let’s put it this way, the other thread you took great issue was, was the “love” thread, where I FACTUALLY answered the OP, I guess you didn’t like the factual answer… the other thread of issue is this one, where people can talk about cells and also talk about paradoxes that arise with the very concept of evolution where both points are still on topic. So actually, you just don’t like my capacity to make threads more interesting and on topic.
I was never banned for discussions like these… I was banned for posting sexual selection theory. And it was persecution. I even linked to an article in the “love” thread that discusses the same topic in the Atlantic Journal, but this topic is so contentious, and my interpretation is so radical (and true) that women complain about it… that’s why I keep getting banned. They think they’re being persecuted when someone says that run-away sexual selection causes all the war and suicide on earth… and the guys just need to get laid, so they’re like, “Ok, we’ll ban him”
You have to understand more about message boards to understand why I get banned for this. The politics is not just about someone hiding behind a username, often times people know each other personally… so if someone defends my argument, they are being judged by real people and not people behind a username from somewhere across the world, academics, politicians etc…
They generally know who each other are even though the general population doesn’t, and the board administrators are under the same selective pressures often. There are a lot of people in the world who believe psychopathy comes just from run-away sexual selection in this or any other species. That was not an idea invented by me. I’m just really good at articulating the mechanisms involved, and have even coined new terms to explain it better… that’s where the real controversy is.
Let me put this to you in context… I can say aliens exist on any message board and not get banned, even if I haven’t had experience with them. But when people touch on sexual selection theory… OH MY!! Even academics talk about it in a hush, hush manner… I have no desire to do this, I just come right out and say what these academics know, and often I say it better than they do or can. It’s the most taboo topic on planet earth, sexual selection theory, that our species is engaged in run-away sexual selection, and that this generates certain phenotypes.
The most controversial part of sexual selection theory is actually two-pronged… one females cause more damage than males, and two, there’s no way any religion is true.
Another aspect of this, is coded but also propaganda… such a show show like Big Bang Theory, which talks about these issues in terms guys understand but in ways that defend the female denial system… the point is that it’s supposed to go over the women’s heads. Codes have been used a lot for controversial topics. Basically, even the article I used in the “love” thread, uses code, instead of saying outright what social scientists generally know… the code they used, which is common, is that males use conspicuous consumption aggression for short term mating… what they don’t mention is that they also use it for long term mating as well, and this is very easy to demonstrate… but it’s a way to get the topic out there without making it so stark. This is the public face of sexual selection theory, cautious and coded… what I’m presenting is what people actually know about this.
You really know how to shoot yourself in the foot. 
Again, I’m responding to the charge of being a troll in the “love” thread as well, and demonstrating a pattern of behavior by Phon. My comment about he Big Bang Theory, is that the joke that goes over the women’s heads is that all the guys in that show had to be assholes to get women, but they are portrayed as the “nice guys” who can’t get laid… this is the code used in that show that goes over women’s heads. So actually when the topic was romantic love, I was factually answering the question, I was not shitting on the thread.
Yeah, by speaking the truth to topics. Go figure.
Durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr durr…
I’m also not a politician or academic, and I don’t have the reputations of academics to worry about because I figured this all out by logic, not from books… so I’m not as socially conscious or coded as others are. I just speak the plain truth about this subject, because I own it myself. Academics tend to know each other by how they write on message boards, and depending on the message board, you have the social and financial elite and politicians too.
And you called me a troll? I’m explaining message board politics… and I’m explaining how people use the word troll to silence people when denial systems are involved. It’s actually extremely hard to prove someone by definition is a troll because part of the definition requires intent, and a lack of earnestness about the subject. You are clearly ignorant about what a troll is Phon.
Phon, you’re only accusing me of speaking but not saying anything but gibberish. Can you prove it? Again, calling someone a troll without proving it is being a troll. That’s one of the ways you can actually PROVE someone is a troll.
Oh, and another way you can prove someone is a troll is by seeing whether they respond directly to the person, or try to use language to go over their heads. Since you’ve done both, you actually, by definition are a troll.
Don’t say i didn’t warn you Phon… I just gave you the search algorithms to find and define a troll… I wasn’t sure yet, until you posted that pic in the last thread and this video, now I know for a fact that you’re a troll. I tried to warn you that you were venomous relative to others… I thought that might change your behavior. This is not an issue of free speech, this is about how people behave in the context of speaking… You can’t murder anyone because of free speech, and on the net you can’t troll and call it free speech.
I am not going to get sucked into discussion with you again.
Actually, you just did with this reply. That’s the part where I was saying in the last thread, that you’re not logical QED… though i gleaned it from other interactions with you as well. Unlike you, I pay close attention to evidence, as Staitktech can attest, he showed me evidence and I said, “Thank you for showing me that” “I can’t prove my argument because of this evidence”
Joking aside, carleas or whoever may concern, the thread ecmandu posted itself is evidence that I replied to every asinine proposal by ecmandu with a serious answer, to the point where he couldn’t sustain his proposals and just shifted the discussion into another asinine argument, at which point I quit. I would have done better to follow my own directive from page one or two and quit the conversation as soon as he joined, as that would have saved me a lot of typing, but I must have been bored 
I’m just going to go ahead and do that for now, and recommend all to do the same.
I do want to point out, though, he is ruining a lot of threads that would otherwise be productive. Something to observe.
And that is all I have to say about this. Tchau!