You are viewing biology through the prism of your bias.
I am viewing biology through absolutely nothing. I have witnessed it, as it passed before me, studied it and come to the conclusions advanced in my reasoning through many years of sober consideration.
Please inform the board, what specific biases you have found in my conclusions and, explain as well how these perceived biases serve my interests.
Here's a tip which may help:
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.
Therefore everything you say is subject to questions.
So what? I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with questions. A question seeks further understanding. I have answered all questions asked and have no problem explaining any element of my reasoning.
Unusual traits are not abnormal
Patently ABSURD…
To wit:
Unusual: not habitually or commonly occurring or done: abnormal
Abnormal: deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying
This is the second time that you have redefined commonly used and otherwise readily understood concepts as a means to sustain your desperate self-validating rationalization. This FACT ALONE wholly discredits your entire argument. As has been noted many times, by me, your argument is a deception. While it is a shame that you would deceive the reader, that you have deceived yourself, is tragic.
Everything you have said is simply a reflection of your bias.
Well now THAT is one Sweet Irony brother…
You have yet to show a single point of bias, in so much as a single facet of the argument… presenting instead, a litany of baseless and chronically advanced assertions which simply pretend the preceding, soundly reasoned points did not exist, demanding out of hand that the points are 'not true'… the nature of which presents the telltale signs of an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by well reasoned, logically valid, rational argument, signs which are typically presented as a symptom of mental disorder; which you may not recognize as the definition of DELUSION!~
Now that is stated, NOT as an attack upon you. It is stated as a FACT, born of the evidence that is the record of this discussion. A sound intellect does not redefine the meaning of words as a means to sustain the point. The sound mind understands that to do so is deceptive and that where one must deceive another in the maintenance of an idea, that the idea itself is fatally flawed, whereupon the sound mind seeks the truth, adjusting their reasoning to reflect the truth.
Now you may deny that you're presenting symptoms of such a disorder. And that's fine… Sadly, that position leaves only one potential and rather unsavory alternative, which is that you are fully aware of the meaning of the words you redefined or otherwise misused and have intentionally sought to deceive the reader through a specious and wholly fraudulent premise. Which would of course, lead to no other potential conclusion, beyond the certainty that you're simply acting on behalf of and are generally animated by: EVIL.
Here's a tip:
Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Work it out and get back to me.