awesome pvc flashy, only got to reading through all of it now

now make another one next week!

round is over

You'll be surprised by the amount of calories beer provides... If it were not for the need for other nutrients than just plain energy and the fact that acetaldehyde (the intermediairy step between alcohol and it's final breakdown product, acetic acid which is bound to coenzym-A to form acetyl-CoA which is used in the citric acid cycle to produce energy) is kind of... toxic, alcohol could be the basis for a great, energetic meal.

not necesarily Wornstrum, some HIV+ people do not develop AIDS, and AIDS can develop at later ages in people who do develop it.

HIV even has a dormant stage in which the body seemingly recovers.

however HIV being detected in 100% of the human population? Source please?

sundays.. not my best days

stubborn is an understatement when we cpff'd all of their attackers' spread and killed their poppers multiple times .

and yes, we, 15, did something .

15    Stupid is what stupid does! (5535) [25,54] RD, Easyway, smallfam due to inactives.
Attack: skyline and theDr
allies

Pretty unlucky for RD, got litetraly 4 actives or smth like that, piggy in the middle to like 5 fams or smth they need to make some nice diplo moves.
if they can get some naps and some new players they can have time to grow, time will tell.

Rating:
Attack: 3/6
eco:  2/6
Leader: 4/6

Pretenders

unlucky is an understatement :\.

"Flint, Please stop posting bogus threads that have no actual value. IF you want to debate something, fine, but this
is just utter trash talk."

he's a republican morbo, that's about all they do .

i usually give SS players an option: change your ways and play with the fam, or be killed off.

I have seen some cases where a player would start SS and then change to a fam player, contributing greatly.

if they are not willing to contribute however, then they are just a waste of space and planets. I was once told I could not kill off cooperative people, however if an SS player is not willing to contribute, in my book that makes him uncooperative, giving a green light to kill him off.

And you keep ignoring the fact that the variability is a result of the meiosis of the gametes, focusing too largely on the formation of the zygote. I'm sure you understand that if there were no variation in the gametes of both the male and the female, all of the zygotes formed from said identical gametes would be, well, identical. The variability of the gamete is essential to the variability in the zygote and therefore in the later human.

By the way I am not saying that the formation of the zygote is not essential to the formation of the brain, I'm just saying that it is not a direct connection.
Plus have you considered all the times the formation of the brain was not succesful? There have been plenty as well, caused by natural factors. Plus what I mostly disagree with is the way the statement puts a timestamp on the zygote, saying "development of the brain/heart starts here" whilest the zygote is at the very least concerned with developing the brain or heart.

If you are so sure about the number of times the formation of a zygote has ultimately lead to the formation of a brain, I would be very interested to know whether you have numbers for the amount of times the formation of a zygote did not lead to a brain.

It is not the same however, as sperm cells are haploid cells while most cells in your body, the ones that give you your appearance, are diploid, containing chromosomes from both your father and mother as i'm sure you are aware of.
The variation between sperm cells is incredible, however. Humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes, of which every time only 1 of the pair is passed on. Add to those crossing over and mutations, such as deletions, insertions and translocations, that may have happened that the cell didn't repair, and you'll have even more variation. The sperm cells are almost as unique as the zygote.

Disregarding the uniqueness of the sperm cell while using the uniqueness of the zygote as an argument... how  convenient.

"that farfetched circumstance has happened about 7 billion times over the past 80 years..."
That process is so dependent on communication between cells to allow for a correct development and so easily interuptable that yes, i'd say connecting 2 steps that are so far apart directly to each other is VERY farfetched.

"The start of brain development is not on day one.. those cells are trying to multiply only at that stage. Nor day two.

There is a date where it happens however."
That is exactly what i stated, although I am not sure of what you are implying. Do you mean that because at one point the growing clump of cells (after a lot of steps) develops a brain, that therefore their argumentation is correct? I would disagree.
Because it is so much later and dependent on so many steps before (which are all dependent on the steps before them, as shown in countless studies where they prevent a step from being taken or even stimulate a step being taken in a seperate clump of cells), I find the connection that the Personhood movement makes between the forming of the diploid zygote and the development of the brain far fetched and flawed.

I agree that after a certain time during pregnancy, there should be serious restrictions to the ability to abort the pregnancy, but that in some situations there should still be a possibility, such as in the case where it may turn out to be fatal for the mother, as you said (although I would add a few other situations that you probably wouldn't agree with, such as if the baby has a handicap of a certain severity).

However, the point in the time and development Personhood movement wants to ban abortions from is far too early and their argumentation (or at least the point you used) is flawed.