Re:Rosetta Probe Discovers Organic Molecules on Comet
by bduerst on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @12:04AM
(#8628374)
You're the one trying to use the semantics of "herbivores" to make a point in biology. By assuming that there is even a "jackpot" to inevitably be won is making the gambler's fallacy. There is no "jackpot".
Quit projecting and just stop already, electromagnetic. You can't even bow out and admit you're wrong gracefully, so you skip straight to name calling.
Bravo.
Re:Rosetta Probe Discovers Organic Molecules on Comet
by electromagnetic on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @12:43PM
(#8631406)
You don't even know what the Gambler's Fallacy is! Gambler's Fallacy is betting according to a limited collection of statistics (red came up 5 times in a row, bet on black!) and not to true probability.
I didn't intend to refer to you personally as an idiot, but turing a phrase however that appears very lost on you.
I'm certain you're just intentionally being a troll, because you're unwilling to make a single basis of an argument or even support your reasoning and can't even use your terms correctly, and now you're attempting to bait me with condescension.
Convergent evolution, and history argue against you. C4 photosynthesis evolved independently 60 times. There's no guarantee it will, and I'm not arguing it will. However, the weight of evidence argues that if there's a readily available niche it is a matter of time.
If you argue I won't win the jackpot, you're likely right - in fact I'd put money on my probability of losing. However, if you argue no one will win the jackpot in the next 100 years you're an idiot.