Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 22:40:25 +0300
>> Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:59:16 +0300
>>>> Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you do understand how not-alive things evolve? That's quite
>>>>> interesting, could you share your understanding of this.
>>>>
>>>> Evolution does not require life. Evolution requires reproduction
>>>
>>> Fair, but "viruses" do not reproduction ... because they are non-living.
>>
>> Evolution does not require that the reproduction be self contained,
>> simply that it involves imperfect copying. Viruses reproduce very
>> effectively with the aid of a cell.
>
> Never seen to happen, "viruses" reproducing, it's just theory. And if they
> cannot reproduce themselves, they doesn't qualify as living. Says
> biologists, not me.
>
> Still I don't get how non-living things are capable to evolve. With that
> train of thought, when you photocopy something, that is also evolution,
> since it's imperfect copying of non-living thing.
>
> Prove me wrong!
>

If they could photocopy themselves, and if some of the imperfections helped
them do it better, you’d have the idea.

--
Pete

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022, Peter Flass wrote:

> Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 22:40:25 +0300
>>> Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:59:16 +0300
>>>>> Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So you do understand how not-alive things evolve? That's quite
>>>>>> interesting, could you share your understanding of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution does not require life. Evolution requires reproduction
>>>>
>>>> Fair, but "viruses" do not reproduction ... because they are non-living.
>>>
>>> Evolution does not require that the reproduction be self contained,
>>> simply that it involves imperfect copying. Viruses reproduce very
>>> effectively with the aid of a cell.
>>
>> Never seen to happen, "viruses" reproducing, it's just theory. And if they
>> cannot reproduce themselves, they doesn't qualify as living. Says
>> biologists, not me.
>>
>> Still I don't get how non-living things are capable to evolve. With that
>> train of thought, when you photocopy something, that is also evolution,
>> since it's imperfect copying of non-living thing.
>>
>> Prove me wrong!
>>
>
> If they could photocopy themselves, and if some of the imperfections helped
> them do it better, you’d have the idea.

Yet again one more goalpost moving ... Where in this sentence it's
mentioned anything "helped them do it better"?

> Evolution does not require that the reproduction be self contained,
> simply that it involves imperfect copying.

Here »evolution« is just something that "involves imperfect copying" and
to this I replied.

--
₪ BUD ₪

On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 1:40:31 PM UTC-6, Bud Spencer wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> > Evolution does not require life. Evolution requires reproduction

> Fair, but "viruses" do not reproduction ... because they are non-living.
> Reproduction ability is one of the biological definitions you need for
> little thing called »life« ...

If viruses didn't reproduce, there wouldn't be enough of them around
for anyone to ever catch a cold.

You must have fallen asleep while they were showing that filmstrip in
junior high. Viruses don't reproduce themselves the way that living
bacteria do, by dividing, and they certainly don't reproduce sexually.

But they do reproduce - they turn the living cells they infect into machines
to make more viruses. That's how they can reproduce while being just
packages of genetic material (with a bit of protein too, for things like
a protective sheath) without the internal machinery to metabolize food,
and fit the conventional description of life.

Also, while most biologists *used* to say viruses weren't alive, the more
open-minded ones who did class them as living are now the majority.

John Savard

On 2022-07-26 12:57 p.m., D.J. wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:53:51 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>>
>> (I'm wondering how much protection the smallpox shot I got in
>> the 1950s gives me against monkeypox.)
>
> It is supposed to help protect against monkeypox.

Monkeypox is endemic in Africa, because it has a wild reserve
in monkeys and rodents. The universal use of
the smallpox vaccine kept monkeypox in check for many decades.

Smallpox only lived in humans so it was possible to
exterminate it. After that smallpox vaccinations stopped,
and people born after are vulnerable. According to CBC
medical contributor, Dr. Peter Lin, protection from those
vaccinations decades ago probably have little remaining protection.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2056219203520

On 7/16/22 11:38, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 11:05:24 -0500
> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If that fools misinformation causes one death, they should be charged
>> with murder. Their posts are too literate to be that dumb.
>
> Only a troll would post as "Redneck".
>

The problem with your drivel is that your statement is the "No True
Scotsman" fallacy. It is a variation of the "ad hominem" fallacy.

Surely, no true Scotsman would call himself "Redneck" so everything else
he says cannot be true.

What a simpleton argument!

Using your logic what kind of Scotsman calls himself, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot?"

Have you heard about throwing stones in glass houses?

COVID is a hoax. The vax kills people. Masking does nothing to protect
from viruses. The U.S. regime has killed more people than Genghis Khan.
The liberalist USA regime is the most genocidal regime in world history.
It makes Hitler and Stalin look like amateurs. Their propaganda is so
good that nobody ever talks about the USA regime body count.

These man-slayers killed over 600 thousand in Iraq alone. Multiply that
by the dozens of aggressive wars they have waged in 200 years to 'spread
democracy.'

Since its founding the USA regime as murdered over 300 million people
not counting Africans, Central and South Americans forced into
starvation and butchery from CIA backed coups and revolutions, and you
trust them when they say they want to protect you from the common cold
with an experimental vaccine?

Who is really the troll here?

--

Redneck

On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 1:11:15 AM UTC+1, Alan Bowler wrote:
> On 2022-07-26 12:57 p.m., D.J. wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:53:51 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
> >>
> >> (I'm wondering how much protection the smallpox shot I got in
> >> the 1950s gives me against monkeypox.)
> >
> > It is supposed to help protect against monkeypox.
>
> Monkeypox is endemic in Africa, because it has a wild reserve
> in monkeys and rodents. The universal use of
> the smallpox vaccine kept monkeypox in check for many decades.
>
> Smallpox only lived in humans so it was possible to
> exterminate it. After that smallpox vaccinations stopped,
> and people born after are vulnerable. According to CBC
> medical contributor, Dr. Peter Lin, protection from those
> vaccinations decades ago probably have little remaining protection.
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2056219203520

We are licensed arm dealers located in Colorado USA. And we have a variety of GUNS & AMMUNITIONS.
Visit our website by hitting the link.

https://rageammostore.com/