>>12472259>It's not. His theory is about development based on the "ideal plant." It's teleological and the exact opposite of natural selection.That's not it at all, have you even bothered to read the fucking thread? That's explicitly what he said he was getting away from and it can be seen plain as day he was, not to mention that if you fucking read the greentext you would see the separation of what you're attempting to denote here only into one half of his scientific ideas here. The other being the essential evolution of the plant in the modern sense.
>Good luck proving your immaterial religious dogma. Until then, keep it to yourself.Shut the fuck up, you're functionally retarded as shown you can't even read the thread. You're such a complete midwit, let me unpack your question: Do you even bother to explain what's "scientifically unverifiable" about what I said? Or "scientifically counterfactual" either? No, what you said there amounted to nothing other than "that goes against my personal ideology" which itself amounts to nothing more than an unexamined cope. That's why I replied calling your statement just a completely meaningless opinion in the context it was used, because all it was was an insult and no argument.
And then you have the audacity to say
>it's just m- muh skydaddies dogmatic!Nothing in this thread has mentioned God, but because you lack any real scientific spirit and only the modern LARP of scientism, you have to tie it back to your unscientific resentment of religion.
>It's a simple sentence. Try harder. I'm saying that your claim that no great advancements are made is based on your lack of knowledge, not a failure of science.Do you even know what my claim was? The reason I asked you to explain your sentence is because you're replying as if you misunderstood what I said, and again you do the same now, but I don't understand what you're misunderstanding. What do you think I said about "no great advancements being made"?
