iEye
Captain
- Feb 7, 2018
- 65
- 26
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Time is the longest distance between two places.I don't choose a target. The process of evolution has no long term target beyond the increased fitness of the next generation.
lets check both scenarios. first: we have empirical evidence that speciation may take about less then 100 years:Yes. Over 30 species of tigers, 2 of elephants, etc etc basically millions of species. Each needs an area.
I think it makes more sense to assume God only called the created original kinds. Not the various adaptations. Likewise, after the flood the kinds speciated.
Except a Google search isn't random.
This is kind of like saying all you need to do to fly to the Moon is build a rocket ship out of popsicle sticks.
You're so out of your depth here you don't even know why you are wrong and how to fix it. Like our prior discussions, this is going absolutely nowhere.
Back on the ignore list you go.
thats how evolution works
progression like this one?:we have the fossil record that shows the progression from fish species upwards.
We have animals like dolphins that don't smell using same genes have genes for smelling in air though they don't actually work.
among other things, we have alot of genes and so do every other animal that doesn't make sense without evolution. Why would god use all the genes for a ape and then turn them off, it's not like he has limited resources or intelect.
Trucks are similar to each other because they are built for hauling big loads. That generally means bigger tires and engines, and a truck bed.
Again, trucks are defined as vehicles to carry heavy loads, and thus all have designs to carry heavy loads. So you are not comparing multiple independent features. The features that trucks have in common over cars can all be determined by four words, "designed for heavy loads".
Dolphins have the features of placental mammals, such as mammary glands, hair, three bones in their ear, and live birth.
Yes, of course, having a placenta and live birth are inherited traits for all placental mammals. It could easily be that a dolphin-like creature would reproduce like tunas. But they don't, because they are placental mammals, and so they reproduce that way.
Sure. That does not refute the point that, since trucks are built to carry heavy loads, by definition they tend to have big wheels and big engines, and thus usually cabs that sit high. So the trait to have a high cab is not independent of being designed for carrying heavy loads.
What about them?
Don't know how you get that from me mentioning how a SINGLE FIN could acquire the ability to move rather than being a static structure from one mutation. After all, having extra muscles or missing a few is actually rather common.
Your entire line of thought is bunk because the capacity to move predates multicellular organisms. That is, there is no reason that the first multicellular organism wouldn't have had the capacity for movement to begin with. You act as if the capacity to move has to independently evolve over and over for no apparent reason, as if how a single cell moves can't possibly contribute to the genes that allow a multicellular organism to move. Heck, even sea sponges, which don't have a nervous system or muscles, have the capacity to move. It becomes more complex over time, stop acting as if the movement had to start with the fish.
i actually talking about a watch with a living traits like self replication and organic components. so according to evolutionery criteria since such a watch has living traits we need to conclude that its the result of a natural process.Seriously, what is your obsession with living and inanimate objects being the same?
Your argument is really dumb, as I've said in one of your many other arguments because it be used so easily for design by a human instead of a god. That's the best I've found to reveal the holes in your argument.
No, those are your criteria. We do not share them. Having living traits does not rule out design. In fact, design can never be ruled out--it just cannot always be proven to be present.i actually talking about a watch with a living traits like self replication and organic components. so according to evolutionery criteria since such a watch has living traits we need to conclude that its the result of a natural process.
but since evolution has no target its not the same at all. and this is why genetic algorithm cant represent a real scenario.
so if i will show you a reasonable explanation for the existence of this trait under the design model, you will agree that the design model is better since it can make a prediction about this trait?
we can discuss about that too. but lets start with your example above.
if we go back to axe work on the 150 aa long protein: he conclude that one in every 10^77 we will get that function. so the chance to get this specific function again is about 10^77. do you agree?
but a bacteria has a different mechanism for moving. so we need to explain how such a traits can evolve stepwise.
Then what even makes it a watch? Does it show time? Why?i actually talking about a watch with a living traits like self replication and organic components. so according to evolutionery criteria since such a watch has living traits we need to conclude that its the result of a natural process.
Then what even makes it a watch? Does it show time? Why?
How was it made? A watch is a human concept, even if it was found in nature, it would follow evolutionary processes and is not an evidence for design just because of similarity in morphology. Read up on analogous organs. Seriously, do it.
i ask very simple question and you ignore it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?