according to evolution a part of a feces (bacteria) can evolve into a supermodel (human)

[xianghua]

but science prove that such a thing is impossible by experiment. since we know that a part of feces+time= non supermodel. so who is going by scientific experiment and who reject it? also take a look at this suppose "natural gear":

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

 

[Speedwell]

but science prove that such a thing is impossible by experiment. since we know that feces+time= non supermodel.

I would have to agree with you. Fecal bacteria don't seem to have fashion shows, so there would be no employment for fecal fashion models and thus no selection pressure to produce them.

 

[Freodin]

Which is, of course, not what evolution really says. Not that you would care.

You might try to convince us by demonstrating that mud + magic can become a supermodel. After all, this is what your story says... and science is very doubtful about that version.

 

[xianghua]

Which is, of course, not what evolution really says. Not that you would care.

according to evolution human didnt evolved from a bacteria-like creature?

You might try to convince us by demonstrating that mud + magic can become a supermodel.

sure. first- its not "magic" but design. now, we know that a robot with DNA and self replication system is evidence for design. thus a walking creature (basically organic robot) is evidence for design too. here is another evidence for design like this "natural" gear:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

 

[Speedwell]

according to evolution human didnt evolved from a bacteria-like creature?




sure. first- its not "magic" but design. now, we know that a robot with DNA and self replication system is evidence for design. thus a walking creature (basically organic robot) is evidence for design too. here is another evidence for design like this "natural" gear:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

If it's a natural gear, how do you know it's designed?

 

[Yttrium]

but science prove that such a thing is impossible by experiment. since we know that feces+time= non supermodel. so who is going by scientific experiment and who reject it?

Where did the feces come from? Did space aliens come to Earth and drop them? This is important information.

 

[Freodin]

according to evolution human didnt evolved from a bacteria-like creature?

Yes. But "feces" are not "bacteria-like creatures"... and there is a little more to all this evolution.

sure. first- its not "magic" but design. now, we know that a robot with DNA and self replication system is evidence for design. thus a walking creature (basically organic robot) is evidence for design too. here is another evidence for design like this "natural" gear:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Nope. Sorry, nothing about "design" here. Forming man from dust and turning him into a living being by breathing on him. That's your side of the story.

But it's cute that you try to get all sciency when it fits you...

 

[xianghua]

Yes. But "feces" are not "bacteria-like creatures"... and there is a little more to all this evolution.

true. this is why i add "a part of".

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Nope. Sorry, nothing about "design" here. Forming man from dust and turning him into a living being by breating on him. That's your side of the story.


But it's cute that you try to get all sciency when it fits you...

so a gear isnt evidence for design?

 

[Jimmy D]

but science prove that such a thing is impossible by experiment. since we know that feces+time= non supermodel. so who is going by scientific experiment and who reject it? also take a look at this suppose "natural gear":

Dude says something weird
The world shrugs and continues
about it's business.

 

[Paulos23]

but science prove that such a thing is impossible by experiment. since we know that feces+time= non supermodel. so who is going by scientific experiment and who reject it? also take a look at this suppose "natural gear":

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

I have to question that you read the item all the way through. It says that those are in a plant hopping insect. And while it is interesting that it developed in a larger life form than a bacteria, they only use them when they are younger and and switch away from using the gears to jump since the teeth of the gears can break off. There is a good reason that you don't see gears and the like very often in nature, you can't open up a living thing like a robot to replace worn parts.

I question this is purposeful design. More like a lucky mutation that turned out useful for a time during the life of this insect. And it is self limiting. Any adult insect that rely on the gears to jump die when they fail, and most likely die before they reproduce. But the gears do help the younger ones survive to adulthood, so they are not selected out of the gene pool.

 

[Justaman0000]

Paulos, "a lucky mutation"? LOL.

 

[Speedwell]

true. this is why i add "a part of".




so a gear isnt evidence for design?

Not unless it's a man-made gear.

 

[Yttrium]

Dude says something weird
The world shrugs and continues
about it's business.

Senryu hits the spot in the morning.

 

[Paulos23]

Paulos, "a lucky mutation"? LOL.

Yes, lucky. Mutations are not directed, therefore 'lucky'.

It is natural selection that determine if they stay in the gene pool.

 

[xianghua]

I have to question that you read the item all the way through. It says that those are in a plant hopping insect. And while it is interesting that it developed in a larger life form than a bacteria, they only use them when they are younger and and switch away from using the gears to jump since the teeth of the gears can break off. There is a good reason that you don't see gears and the like very often in nature, you can't open up a living thing like a robot to replace worn parts.

I question this is purposeful design. More like a lucky mutation that turned out useful for a time during the life of this insect. And it is self limiting. Any adult insect that rely on the gears to jump die when they fail, and most likely die before they reproduce. But the gears do help the younger ones survive to adulthood, so they are not selected out of the gene pool.

i didnt read the entire article. so or so a gear is evidence for design as far as we know. another problem is what the use of a single gear. if they insect need both of them then how it evolved stepwise?

 

[Speedwell]

i didnt read the entire article. so or so a gear is evidence for design as far as we know. another problem is what the use of a single gear. if they insect need both of them then how it evolved stepwise?

Because they evolved together, each acting as part of the selective environment of the other. That's the way it always is with the evolution of related components of a composite system.

 

[Justaman0000]

Yes, lucky. Mutations are not directed, therefore 'lucky'.

It is natural selection that determine if they stay in the gene pool.

There is no such thing at luck in science.

 

[Paulos23]

Because they evolved together, each acting as part of the selective environment of the other. That's the way it always is with the evolution of related components of a composite system.

This.

 

[Paulos23]

There is no such thing at luck in science.

OK fine, statistics and probability.

 

[xianghua]

Because they evolved together, each acting as part of the selective environment of the other. That's the way it always is with the evolution of related components of a composite system.

but the chance that two parts will evolve simultaneously is very low.