Could cars reproduce?

[zelosravioli]

Even If humans were born with watches on their arms, Ipod players on their ears, and functional video screens on their stomachs, where we could watch reruns of Bonanza, Darwinists would still say "these evolved there through millions of years of natural selection "

"This built-in adaptation is called "evolution by random variation and natural selection" (Speedwell)
Or you could just call it magic! You can 'say' things advance in complexity and design purely by chance, but that doesn't make it so. That things can adapt or improve is no more evidence for evolution than it is for design - but the fact remains - at the end of the day, all these millions of different creatures have trillions upon trillions of fantastic DESIGN within and throughout all of them. So all creatures do indeed have design, nevertheless.

Darwinists say that 'the billions of designs happened by chance without design'. But that is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Darwinists say that 'the billions of designs happened by chance without design'. But that is a contradiction in terms.

Not only that, it's simply ridiculous and goes against every law of logical reasoning I'm aware of, yet people actually believe it, and call those who don't, the crackpot.

Goes to show just how strong the desire to not believe what is easily the simplest, and most likely explanation actually is, and forget about faith for the moment, that's speaking from nothing more than a logical standpoint.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not only that, it's simply ridiculous and goes against every law of logical reasoning I'm aware of, yet people actually believe it, and call those who don't, the crackpot.

Indeed it is illogical, and I suspect you can't point to anyone who actually believes it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Darwinists say that 'the billions of designs happened by chance without design'.

Citation please.

But that is a contradiction in terms.

That would be why "Darwinists" (are they the same as "evolutionists"?) don't say what you claim they do.

 

[Larniavc]

first : you didnt show yet that animal can evolve into a different animal.

second: cars can evolve as we can see in this image:

and after a period of time we will get this:

so what do you know? cars can evolve after all. now imagine what will happen in millions of years...


(images from 30th anniversary of the F40 - Ferrari.com

and Ferrari f 40 pictures. Photo 3.)

Poe.

 

[Jimmy D]

What about a symbiotic relationship between "chassis" creatures and "wheel" creatures?

​

Sounds a bit like the Mulefa in Philip Pullman's Amber Spyglass.

 

[Rivga]

Not only that, it's simply ridiculous and goes against every law of logical reasoning I'm aware of, yet people actually believe it, and call those who don't, the crackpot.


Goes to show just how strong the desire to not believe what is easily the simplest, and most likely explanation actually is, and forget about faith for the moment, that's speaking from nothing more than a logical standpoint.

So to break it down a little evolution is two parts ONLY the first part is random:

1) Mutations change the animal - this part is random

2) Natural selection filters the changes - this part takes away the randomness.


Crackpot? but we have evidence witnessed how random mutations can effect a species and produce a wide range of sub-species.


So your disagreement follows down that the randomness cannot produce such positive changes, let’s look at a huge experiment that mankind have been doing without realising it is an experiment.


Breeding Dogs, in this experiment mankind has taken away the natural selection element of the evolutionary theory. And replaced it with human intervention. Humans have not done any genetic engineering so the part of the dog breeding that produces random positive traits is still done by random mutation – only difference is we speed up evolution by “faking natural selection”. But as you are only disagreeing with the random part of the theory of evolution this is a great example.

I am hoping that you know how dogs came about? Breed by humans from wolves – all dogs come from Wolves.

Humans looked for certain traits in the wolf that they wanted, and allowed those wolves to mate – producing a new crop of wolves that again mated and humans again act as natural selection and take out of the gene pool any animals that don’t inherit the positive traits they want.

How many different breeds of Dogs do we have? They are all amazingly different from each other. This has been done in 16,000 – 32,000 years, in evolutionary terms this is tiny.

All breeds of dog have come about by random mutation, humans until now have not had the knowledge to manipulate DNA.

The only difference between this and normal evolution is that we replaced natural selection with human intervention.

So you, yourself, may find it hard to believe but we have evidence. And this is not the only evidence. We have witnessed it, recorded it, repeated the experiments to create new breeds of dogs in modern times.

 

[xianghua]

The difference is that the elephant has babies with mutations, each slightly different from its parents. And so the descendents will be different from the starting elephants.

the same with this car. it will change over time and will be different from the starting car.

 

[Jimmy D]

the same with this car. it will change over time and will be different from the starting car.

And if my auntie had *******'s she'd be my Uncle.

(As we say in Shropshire)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

the same with this car. it will change over time and will be different from the starting car.

Except that you ARE WRONG BECAUSE CARS AREN'T BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS SO THEY CAN'T REPRODUCE SO THEY CAN'T EVOLVE! HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Indeed it is illogical, and I suspect you can't point to anyone who actually believes it.

Oh c'mon, we now you believe it, and are just doing a little damage control to cover yourself in case someone finds out.

It's only logical it was posted for a reason, ask the op, not me.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh c'mon, we now you believe it, and are just doing a little damage control to cover yourself in case someone finds out.

It's only logical it was posted for a reason, ask the op, not me.

is it logical to make up some false crap about what the theory of evolution claims and then insist that we must believe it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So to break it down a little evolution is two parts ONLY the first part is random:

1) Mutations change the animal - this part is random

2) Natural selection filters the changes - this part takes away the randomness.


Crackpot? but we have evidence witnessed how random mutations can effect a species and produce a wide range of sub-species.


So your disagreement follows down that the randomness cannot produce such positive changes, let’s look at a huge experiment that mankind have been doing without realising it is an experiment.


Breeding Dogs, in this experiment mankind has taken away the natural selection element of the evolutionary theory. And replaced it with human intervention. Humans have not done any genetic engineering so the part of the dog breeding that produces random positive traits is still done by random mutation – only difference is we speed up evolution by “faking natural selection”. But as you are only disagreeing with the random part of the theory of evolution this is a great example.

I am hoping that you know how dogs came about? Breed by humans from wolves – all dogs come from Wolves.

Humans looked for certain traits in the wolf that they wanted, and allowed those wolves to mate – producing a new crop of wolves that again mated and humans again act as natural selection and take out of the gene pool any animals that don’t inherit the positive traits they want.

How many different breeds of Dogs do we have? They are all amazingly different from each other. This has been done in 16,000 – 32,000 years, in evolutionary terms this is tiny.

All breeds of dog have come about by random mutation, humans until now have not had the knowledge to manipulate DNA.

The only difference between this and normal evolution is that we replaced natural selection with human intervention.

So you, yourself, may find it hard to believe but we have evidence. And this is not the only evidence. We have witnessed it, recorded it, repeated the experiments to create new breeds of dogs in modern times.

Bungle_Bear wanted me to point to someone who believed it,so here ya' go.

Sorry Rivga, I didn't really read your post any more than I did the OP, and for obvious reasons, but thanks for the effort. I mean I know its real to you so I don't want to sound any less understanding than I already have..

 

[Kenny'sID]

is it logical to make up some false crap about what the theory of evolution claims and then insist that we must believe it?

Except, well will you looky there...I didn't say that.

You either read into what I said or your post was meant in reply to someone else.

 

[Rivga]

the same with this car. it will change over time and will be different from the starting car.

A car does not believe in God, therefore no God.

The above logic is as intellectually robust as your own logic.

 

[Rivga]

Sorry Rivga, I didn't really read your post any more than I did the OP, and for obvious reasons, but thanks for the effort. I mean I know its real to you so I don't want to sound any less understanding than I already have..

No one said that learning the about evolution was simple, which is one of the reasons that a lot of people do not understand it. It takes a little effort.

 

[Speedwell]

Except, well will you looky there...I didn't say that.

You either read into what I said or your post was meant in reply to someone else.

is it logical to make up some false crap about what the theory of evolution claims and then insist that we must believe it?

Zelosravioli did it in this thread, creationists do it constantly. Here is a similar bunch of nonsense you made up and posted in the "Study" thread:

"Like genetic mutations increasing complexity as eradiating thousands of generations of fruit flies proved does not happen?
Like pointing to adaptation; a conservative process; and claiming that repeated subtraction leads to addition?
Like claiming that benevolent mutations, which almost never happen, are the driving force of life in the universe?"

Creationists: Stop making up false crap about the theory of evolution and insisting that we MUST believe it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Zelosravioli did it in this thread, creationists do it constantly. Here is a similar bunch of nonsense you made up and posted in the "Study" thread:

"Like genetic mutations increasing complexity as eradiating thousands of generations of fruit flies proved does not happen?
Like pointing to adaptation; a conservative process; and claiming that repeated subtraction leads to addition?
Like claiming that benevolent mutations, which almost never happen, are the driving force of life in the universe?"

Creationists: Stop making up false crap about the theory of evolution and insisting that we MUST believe it.

I think your getting a bit over exited here, and things may be going a little haywire. Why didn't you quote me the normal way so I could see if indeed that was me that said what you claim?

Now quote what "I made up" the proper way so can verify it, as that doesn't sound at all like something I would say, but for the moment I'll give benefit of doubt.

If you are correct, I'll deal with it, If not, then....

Evolutionists: Stop making up false crap about creationists making up false crap about evolution..

 

[Kenny'sID]

No one said that learning the about evolution was simple, which is one of the reasons that a lot of people do not understand it. It takes a little effort.

You think this is tough, take a shot at Flat Earth.

Eventually you will learn why neither are simple.

 

[Kenny'sID]