Christians! Prove Guided Evolution!

[Ouroboros]

Yes I know why scientists like to separate it, evolution can't explain the start to life. So what has happened is that, they will continue on in evolution in hopes that in the future someone will figure out the start to life. And that it has to be non life to life. If it turns out to be creation then everything is lost. Abiogenesis theory is getting closer to the idea of creation.

You don't get it.

 

Evolution is the theory about how things change. Abiogenesis is the theory about how it started.

 

Even if abiogenesis comes to the point of God creating the first single cells, evolution is still true! And the reason is that evolution is about how the first cells evolved into multicell organisms and then into creatures.

 

You're still arguing a moot point.

 

 

The reason is that the scientists have gotten 85% of their theory wrong.

I have read a lot too, and I don't see they got 85% wrong.

 

And my comment was that YOU are representing what science says to 85%! Meaning, you are making claims that science says this or that when it doesn't. Even if science was 85% wrong, you can't misquote science as evidence for science being wrong. It's just utterly stupid.

 

I'm not just saying this to be difficult, but this is true.

Give me an example what you think shows that evolution is true. start after the start of life. Do scientists know what was the first bit of life ( I'm not talking Abiogenesis here) once there was life. what was it, and how did it evolve?

I thought you said that you wanted to answer our questions, not the other way around. I actually will not give you any evidence for evolution because I think you're not capable of following the arguments.

 

 

Explain what kind of forces would change the state of a Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (in effect breaking it)? (It's the law about genetic distribution: p^2+2pq+q^2=1) So let's hear it. What kind of forces would alter/break the equilibrium?

The Hardy–Weinberg principle (also known by a variety of names: HWP, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, Hardy–Weinberg Theorem, HWE, or Hardy–Weinberg law) states that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant—that is, they are in equilibrium—from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, "overlapping generations", random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these "disturbing influences" are always in effect. That is, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature. Genetic equilibrium is an ideal state that provides a baseline against which to measure change.

You cut and pasted instead of really get yourself into understanding what the HW law says.

 

It is totally true, the HW equation does not hold up in reality. And that was what I wanted you to read and understand, but I don't think you understand the conclusion from that. So I will tell you.

 

If evolution is false, then the Hardy-Weinberg equation would always be in equilibrium. The HW equation is the state in which genetic distribution would be if Creation was true.

 

BUT! The HW equation is hardly ever in equilibrium, and the only explanation to that is... drumroll... evolutionary pressure!

 

So you quoted Wikipedia to prove me wrong somehow, yet you didn't realize that the quote is the argument that EVOLUTION IS TRUE!!!

 

 

So you fell into my trap because you didn't understand it. You're a quote-miner and nothing else. You don't understand the implications of HWE and you don't care, because you just want to shove your religion down our throats.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

 

This is an example of what I mean. There are many ideas floating around, that people take a possible, but are not. They are just Ideas. This is the snow job effect, man made snow, with very little truth.

Evolution is filled with this kind of thing.

 

The Hardy-Weinberg Equation is one of the proofs for evolution... idiot! The quote you gave is the argument to why evolution is true. You didn't even read it. It explains that since HWE is never in equilibrium, therefore environmental and evolutionary pressure is the explanation to why it is not in equilibrium. (Dumbhat!)

 

Please do not take this personally. All I am saying is that take a real look at what the scientists are saying, and what really is known.

Well, reading your response to the HWE question it is obvious that you don't look at all what the scientists are saying! LMAO right now, big time.

 

Let me explain this to you again.

 

The HWE is the ideal state of allele distribution in a population. You take a sample of the genetic makeup. You pinpoint two alleles that you want to check. You put the numbers into the equation. The equation is mostly always unbalanced. And that's the point. And the reason to the unbalance is natural selection!

 

The only time HWE can be in full equilibrium is when natural selection and evolution does NOT occur.

 

Or put it this way, HWE is only in balance when Creation is true. But HWE is never in balance, hence Creation is not true. Did you get it now? (Probably not)

[Ouroboros]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....nberg_principle

 

 

 

Hey look you can copy/paste material from wikipedia, gee you're smart! Dude you remind me of ray comfort, "see here? the banana fits perfectly in my mouth, the right size and shape! therefore proof for a creator!" you know a cock fits in there right perfectly too.

What he doesn't get is the HWE is practically never in equilibrium. That's the point. HWE is the ideal state when evolution is not working. HWE would always be true if Creation was true. HWE is rarely ever in equilibrium, hence evolutionary process is there. That's the point. The point is that HWE is not in equilibrium, which it would be if evolution was false. He totally reversed it. He thought that HWE would be balanced when evolution works, but it's not. Funny, isn't it? He totally fell for my little trap. And he probably won't get why.

 

I never really try to set people up, but he offered the challenge. And I don't think I have ever pwnd someone this much! Sorry. I can't help it. It's too funny...

 

Later today, I will start a thread about evidence for evolution, and I will start by explaining the processes and the HWE.

[Ouroboros]

Even if the scientists did created life in a test tube, that only proves creation.

Which they have. By letting nature create it for them. Not by actually assemble the things themselves, but only provide the environment for new life to form, and nature took care of the rest.

 

I will give you an example.

We know that the materials are on the earth to make bread. And the scientists could come up with theories and mathematical equations to show that it could happen.

But scientists could make bread in a lab. Does that show me that bread just happens on it's own? NO. But what it does tell me is that the materials are here, but it takes life ( intelligence) to make bread.

This is also ignoring, how the materials to make bread, happened to be here.

Does it take intelligence to make a tree? I don't see God coming down and shaping every tree. The process of trees forming is a process through unfolding of the DNA. It's proven. Even us, our body, is formed through the process of epigenesis.

 

This shows a short coming of man, he is not able to know everything all at once. Many devote their life to one thing to become an expert in that one thing. I also means that it takes a lot of intelligence to understand the many parts to these questions. Of course the start to life and why we see the variety of life is connected.

Scientists are very good at looking at a musical note ( for example) and telling us what frequency is at and it's harmonics and what scale it's in etc. So what happens is that a symphony is playing , and the scientists grabs some of the notes they hear and studies them , and then tells us all about them. But.... they miss the music. They don't see the greater picture.

You make a lot of assumptions about what scientists are good and bad at, and you are constantly misrepresenting them while doing it. It's very obvious to most of us here that you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

So now I'm going to ask you more questions about evolution. Was Australopithecus afarensis and upright walker? Were they humans or apes? Did they use tools? And how do we know they were bipeds? And lastly, how many fossils have they found of this species?

 

Then we can go to Homo habilis and ergaster. Were they bipeds? How do we know? Are they examples of humans or apes? Did they use tools? How many fossils do we have?

 

And we can go on with Homo erectus, their tool use, and weapons. And why not explain the morphological difference between us and them. Why is there a phenotypical difference?

 

Then we have Homo neadertalis. We have DNA from the neaderthals. It has been compared to modern human. Even though there are a lot of genetic similarities, they were a different species. They were not like modern humans. And yet they walked upright, used tools, hunted with spears, buried their dead. How can that be? Another human species parallel with us. And it's in the DNA code. Physical evidence. Hardcore evidence. As fixed, true, and absolute as gravity. How? Did God create all these homonid species and kill them out?

[Leinad89]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....nberg_principle

 

 

 

Hey look you can copy/paste material from wikipedia, gee you're smart! Dude you remind me of ray comfort, "see here? the banana fits perfectly in my mouth, the right size and shape! therefore proof for a creator!" you know a cock fits in there right perfectly too.

Xerces, man, that was a childish and stupid response.. Son, I am disappoint.

[epignosis]

You cut and pasted instead of really get yourself into understanding what the HW law says.

 

It is totally true, the HW equation does not hold up in reality. And that was what I wanted you to read and understand, but I don't think you understand the conclusion from that. So I will tell you.

This is exactly the point I was making. The theories that scientist have now "do not hold up in reality" . It is fine to have theories and ideas and assumptions. But if they don't hold up in reality, then you have and exercise in futility. This is what the theory of evolution is. That is the point I was trying to get across.

Evolution is not based on facts or evidence,and is based more on intellectual reasonings that do not work reality.

Maybe the best way to show this is, to use real life examples.

So after the first bit of life somehow just happened, what did that evolve into,and How?

[epignosis]

Which they have. By letting nature create it for them. Not by actually assemble the things themselves, but only provide the environment for new life to form, and nature took care of the rest.

 

Then they don't need to do the experiments at all, it should just be happening all around us.

I mean I could get all the ingredients together to make bread and heat it up, so that all the materials work together and the chemical reaction happens, ( it does it on it's own). You have bread.

But it doesn't happen in reality on it's own. Bread is created.

[Ouroboros]

You cut and pasted instead of really get yourself into understanding what the HW law says.

 

It is totally true, the HW equation does not hold up in reality. And that was what I wanted you to read and understand, but I don't think you understand the conclusion from that. So I will tell you.

This is exactly the point I was making. The theories that scientist have now "do not hold up in reality" . It is fine to have theories and ideas and assumptions. But if they don't hold up in reality, then you have and exercise in futility. This is what the theory of evolution is. That is the point I was trying to get across.

That point did not come across, but obviously my point didn't get across to you.

 

Let me simplify it for you:

 

If Creationism was true, HWE would always be in equilibrium. Always, everywhere, and anytime.

 

But it's not. Why? Explain why HWE is not in equilibrium?

 

You just quoted where they told that it's not in equilibrium where EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES ARE IN PLACE.

 

In other words, the only reason why HWE is NOT in equilibrium is BECAUSE evolution is TRUE.

 

(I knew this would be way over your head. )

 

Evolution is not based on facts or evidence,and is based more on intellectual reasonings that do not work reality.

Maybe the best way to show this is, to use real life examples.

So after the first bit of life somehow just happened, what did that evolve into,and How?

Get a book and read. That's my suggestion. You need to learn some stuff before you can understand. One start would be to learn English first.

 

Answer me this, where did the smallpox virus come from?

[Ouroboros]

Which they have. By letting nature create it for them. Not by actually assemble the things themselves, but only provide the environment for new life to form, and nature took care of the rest.

 

Then they don't need to do the experiments at all, it should just be happening all around us.

It does. A live study of guppies in the wild is one example, and there are others.

 

Where do you think HIV, SARS, MRSA, smallpox, sickle cell anemia and other things like that come from? They happened naturally in the world.

 

Where do you think the caecal vale in P. sicul on Pod Mrcaru come from? That is also an example of a natural evolutionary event. And that's just one example (which you can read more about in Dawkin's book... which I assume you have read already since you claim to have read all Dawkin's books.)

 

 

I mean I could get all the ingredients together to make bread and heat it up, so that all the materials work together and the chemical reaction happens, ( it does it on it's own). You have bread.

But it doesn't happen in reality on it's own. Bread is created.

The E.coli bacteria ARA-3 evolved to use citrate for energy during Lenski's experiments. He didn't make the do it. They did it all by themselves. (Another example you can read about in Dawkins' book. You really need to read about the details to fully appreciate how it was done.) What was really interesting about this mutation is that it's one that Creationists would call "irreducible complex." It was a two (or perhaps more) steps of mutations (naturally, not induced or controlled by scientists).

 

The thing here is that you assume that no one has done any experiments to confirm if evolution is true or not. But they have. Many times, and still do, in many ways. And the reason why they do it now is to understand the complexity of genetic expression. One gene can have multiple effects and many genes can contribute to one single effect. It's very complex, but it's real and heavily supported by evidence.

 

The only reason you deny it is because you don't trust scientists or science. That's the only reason. You rather believe in what your religious leaders say than what scientists find. It's your choice to stay ignorant. You need to change that attitude to understand the real world.

[Darklady]

You cut and pasted instead of really get yourself into understanding what the HW law says.

 

It is totally true, the HW equation does not hold up in reality. And that was what I wanted you to read and understand, but I don't think you understand the conclusion from that. So I will tell you.

This is exactly the point I was making. The theories that scientist have now "do not hold up in reality" . It is fine to have theories and ideas and assumptions. But if they don't hold up in reality, then you have and exercise in futility. This is what the theory of evolution is. That is the point I was trying to get across.

Evolution is not based on facts or evidence,and is based more on intellectual reasonings that do not work reality.

Maybe the best way to show this is, to use real life examples.

So after the first bit of life somehow just happened, what did that evolve into,and How?

 

are you serious? No evidence? Don't hold up in reality? Try doing some serious reading on the subject.

[epignosis]

So now I'm going to ask you more questions about evolution. Was Australopithecus afarensis and upright walker? Were they humans or apes? Did they use tools? And how do we know they were bipeds? And lastly, how many fossils have they found of this species?

The response I for this is you are away head of yourself. Because you have to assume that evolution got these creature to this point in development. There is no evidence that evolution can happen at all.

Science scientists don't know how life started, do they they know what the first life was? Did it have DNA or not? What did it evolve into . And how did that happen?

[Ouroboros]

So now I'm going to ask you more questions about evolution. Was Australopithecus afarensis and upright walker? Were they humans or apes? Did they use tools? And how do we know they were bipeds? And lastly, how many fossils have they found of this species?

The response I for this is you are away head of yourself. Because you have to assume that evolution got these creature to this point in development.

What? That wasn't my question. I wanted you to tell me what they were.

 

These fossils exist for real. I think my professor said there are some hundred of skulls and bones from Australopithecus. Where did they come from, and what are they?

 

I'm not making an assumption here. I'm asking you what they are.

 

There is no evidence that evolution can happen at all.

That's where you are completely wrong. I keep telling you this, but you keep on insisting that there are none.

 

You haven't read anything about evolution. You probably just picked up some random apologist book and read that one. Ken Hovind or Ken Ham? Which one is your favorite?

 

Science scientists don't know how life started, do they they know what the first life was? Did it have DNA or not? What did it evolve into . And how did that happen?

You don't get the point, do you? You're just a parrot repeating the same questions over and over again and never listening to the answers.

 

Evidence for evolution:

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Here's a list of observed speciation events (and the list is old, there are much more now, but I don't know anyone who keeps track of them because it would be a full time job): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

 

 

And again, evolution has been observed and recorded in finches, rats, lizards, bacteria, guppies, and much much more... Even today. All the time. Scientific studies showing evolutionary processes in action.

 

But, besides all this, you offered to answer the questions about evolution, but you're not. So how about it. I want to know your explanation to what the fossil finds of Australopithecus afarensis really means.

 

And while you're at it, explain how come Homo neadertalis buried their dead. Why did they do it?

[Ouroboros]

Another question I have to you Epi is, why do you argue against evolution in a topic where the intention was to talk about guided evolution? The purpose of this thread was not to debate if evolution was true or not, but if Theistic evolution was true or not. I must assume that you don't eve know the difference... As soon as someone mentions 'evolution' they must come from Satan, isn't it so?

[epignosis]

Answer me this, where did the smallpox virus come from?

The simple answer is, from cowpox.

[Ouroboros]

Answer me this, where did the smallpox virus come from?

The simple answer is, from cowpox.

So is it the same virus? Or is it different? How did it come from the cowpox? (Btw, my information says it came form a rodent virus, not cowpox, but let's say for the sake of argument that it came from cowpox.)

[epignosis]

It does. A live study of guppies in the wild is one example, and there are others.

 

Where do you think HIV, SARS, MRSA, smallpox, sickle cell anemia and other things like that come from? They happened naturally in the world.

 

Where do you think the caecal vale in P. sicul on Pod Mrcaru come from? That is also an example of a natural evolutionary event. And that's just one example (which you can read more about in Dawkin's book... which I assume you have read already since you claim to have read all Dawkin's books.)

we need Bactria and viruses to survive. These can cause disease., when things go out of sync, or are 'pressured ' to do so. ( pressured meaning ) in too close contact for prolonged times, so that these then can change and then be more dangerous for us. The scientists like to call this mutation or evolved. But they also could be called programed to act in this way.

But here again you are assuming that life just happened and then evolved. But there is not proof or evidence for that.

It is much better to go to the beginning to see how all we see came about.

[Ouroboros]

It does. A live study of guppies in the wild is one example, and there are others.

 

Where do you think HIV, SARS, MRSA, smallpox, sickle cell anemia and other things like that come from? They happened naturally in the world.

 

Where do you think the caecal vale in P. sicul on Pod Mrcaru come from? That is also an example of a natural evolutionary event. And that's just one example (which you can read more about in Dawkin's book... which I assume you have read already since you claim to have read all Dawkin's books.)

we need Bactria and viruses to survive. These can cause disease., when things go out of sync, or are 'pressured ' to do so. ( pressured meaning ) in too close contact for prolonged times, so that these then can change and then be more dangerous for us. The scientists like to call this mutation or evolved. But they also could be called programed to act in this way.

Programmed how? If the actual RNA and DNA changes (they can see this by using a sequencer, it's a machine that read the genetic letters ACTG, and print them out) then there's a mutation.

 

The thing is, the program changes. By itself. Without a program outside it changing it. This is a fact. This is known. This is science.

 

The mutations are very well documented. It's not any guessing. They know what kinds of mutations that can occur, and even in some conditions why they happen. These mutations are observed.

 

The E.Coli that changed during Lemski's experiment, they analyzed and sequenced the DNA. It was the DNA (the program) that had changed.

 

So what program are you talking about that changed the program? The magical superprogram in the 11th dimension that we can't see? Yeah, right. Let's imagine things instead of looking at reality...

 

But here again you are assuming that life just happened and then evolved. But there is not proof or evidence for that.

The DNA changed. That's proof. Unless you don't understand how evolution works... which I clearly can see that you don't.

 

 

It is much better to go to the beginning to see how all we see came about.

Eh. No. You can't build a science about change by looking at something else. You will not get your car to the other city by parking it at home.

 

I'm done. It's clear you don't know much about science or evolution.

[epignosis]

The E.coli bacteria ARA-3 evolved to use citrate for energy during Lenski's experiments. He didn't make the do it. They did it all by themselves. (Another example you can read about in Dawkins' book. You really need to read about the details to fully appreciate how it was done.) What was really interesting about this mutation is that it's one that Creationists would call "irreducible complex." It was a two (or perhaps more) steps of mutations (naturally, not induced or controlled by scientists).

When you say they did it by themselves, do you mean they used their intelligence to evolve or change or do you mean that under a certain pressure they change ( sort of like an instinct ). You can also say they were programed to do that. You have to assume these were not created to say they did it by themselves. If they came from intelligence you would say they were programed or the design was why they acted like that..

[epignosis]

What? That wasn't my question. I wanted you to tell me what they were.

 

These fossils exist for real. I think my professor said there are some hundred of skulls and bones from Australopithecus. Where did they come from, and what are they?

 

I'm not making an assumption here. I'm asking you what they are.

Yes the fossils are for real, it is the interpretation of what the fossils mean, this is the question. Many 'missing links' have been found over the years, and many have not been heard of again. It is about the interpretation of the science or material, found. That's why you can't start with animals that are away down the line. You have to assume that evolution is true, to even talk about that.

You have to start at the beginning. If life can't start with out a creator then that changes everything from then on. You then have to tie all life to that creator.

That is why I said that evolution demands that life started from non life. The problem with that is that scientists have to have blinders on when researching this. They really are backed into a corner that demands only one answer, no matter what the facts say. The start to life and evolution, they are the same thing they are not two different things. Scientists have done this to themselves. They are supporting something they did not have all the facts for. That is not scientific, or what science is supposed to be about.

[Ouroboros]

The E.coli bacteria ARA-3 evolved to use citrate for energy during Lenski's experiments. He didn't make the do it. They did it all by themselves. (Another example you can read about in Dawkins' book. You really need to read about the details to fully appreciate how it was done.) What was really interesting about this mutation is that it's one that Creationists would call "irreducible complex." It was a two (or perhaps more) steps of mutations (naturally, not induced or controlled by scientists).

When you say they did it by themselves, do you mean they used their intelligence to evolve or change or do you mean that under a certain pressure they change ( sort of like an instinct ).

This is how it works, and this is how it was confirmed:

 

The DNA mutates when it duplicates. This is observed and documented.

 

Sometimes these mutations are bad for the bacteria, and the one with the bad mutation will die off.

 

The ones with more beneficial mutations survives and if the mutation is very much beneficial, they will survive and duplicate faster than the original bacteria.

 

The mutations are random, but the selection is natural because those bacteria that are stronger, faster, and can reproduce better, survive better and have more offspring.

 

And this is how it works... documented.

 

You can also say they were programed to do that.

You mean that protons and electrons have some kind of program in them? How? Quarks are the program?

 

These are chemical processes where the DNA (the program) changes through mutations and the mutations that are most beneficial have a stronger (statistical) chance of surviving and reproducing.

 

That's how it works. And that's how they KNOW it works (not guess).

 

You have to assume these were not created to say they did it by themselves. If they came from intelligence you would say they were programed or the design was why they acted like that..

They compared the DNA before and after. The DNA (the program) changed. And the DNA is the only program in the bacteria. There are no other program code.

 

The mutations happens. That's a fact. That is documented by comparing before and after. The DNA mutates.

 

You have (statistically) about 4.2 mutations in you, compared to your parents.

[Ouroboros]

What? That wasn't my question. I wanted you to tell me what they were.

 

These fossils exist for real. I think my professor said there are some hundred of skulls and bones from Australopithecus. Where did they come from, and what are they?

 

I'm not making an assumption here. I'm asking you what they are.

Yes the fossils are for real, it is the interpretation of what the fossils mean, this is the question. Many 'missing links' have been found over the years, and many have not been heard of again.

Missing links? No, these are not missing links. These are other humans. These are other human species. They walked, some of them talked, some of them made tools, some of the made spears and hunted, some of them made art, and some of them even buried their dead. But still, they're not Homo sapiens. Genetically and morphologically, they are different species than us.

 

It is about the interpretation of the science or material, found.

That's exactly what scientists do.

 

If you find that the skull has a foramen magnum which is located at the bottom of the skull, perpendicular horizontal line, the skeleton must have been under the body just like a biped. And there are other bones you can see bipedality in too, and markings for muscle attachments, and much more. These homonids were walking on two feet, just like us (and they used tools, like our stoneage humans).

 

That's why you can't start with animals that are away down the line. You have to assume that evolution is true, to even talk about that.

The reason why evolution came about was the findings of animals and fossils, not the other way around. Scientists accepted evolution because of the evidence, not because they just wanted to.

 

You have to start at the beginning. If life can't start with out a creator then that changes everything from then on. You then have to tie all life to that creator.

Not at all.

 

That is why I said that evolution demands that life started from non life.

Of course it did. And exactly how, that I leave up to you to decide what you believe, but from that point forward, after life came to be (created or not), evolution took place to make all the species. There's no doubt about it.

 

The problem with that is that scientists have to have blinders on when researching this.

No, they don't. That's your assumption because you're the one with the blinders.

 

They really are backed into a corner that demands only one answer, no matter what the facts say. The start to life and evolution, they are the same thing they are not two different things.

They are separate things. I don't care how many times you repeat it, they're separate fields of study.

 

Of course some evolution scientist would study this too, but really, it's a question of biochemistry more than evolution.

 

You wouldn't demand that a astronomer knows chemistry, or that a gardener knows the abiogenesis, anymore than you demand an evolutionist to know how abiogenesis happened.

 

It's a red herring.

 

Scientists have done this to themselves. They are supporting something they did not have all the facts for. That is not scientific, or what science is supposed to be about.

No, that's not true. Science is about discovering, not about knowing all facts beforehand. If we had all facts beforehand, there wouldn't be any science. Science is about finding out. It's about the discovery, not about knowing before we know. That's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

[Crazy Donna]

That post was epic.

[Crazy Donna]

Answer me this, where did the smallpox virus come from?

The simple answer is, from cowpox.

So you're openly admitting that the cowpox virus EVOLVED into the smallpox virus?

 

Can you prove this? With evidence?

[epignosis]

Ha Ha

<<------------------------------------------ this is a photo of the moderator eating lunch.

[Legion]

Anyone care to predict what the tragectory of Epignosis' trip through ex-C will look like?

[Ouroboros]

That post was epic.

 

I probably failed in making it really clear in that post, but that's because I was laughing so hard.

 

I don't think I've been so amused or had so much schadenfreude.