{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by The Deputy:
5/4/2015 7:58:56 PM
2
Your watch analogy fails to represent evolution in every significant way.
1.) Evolution is not random chance, but a process defined by the law of natural selection.
[spoiler]The assemblages favored by nature are preserved and those less fit are discarded. The shaking of the box does not represent this as each piece is haphazardly clashed against every other piece with no pattern whatsoever.[/spoiler]
2.) Your analogy is an example of single-step selection, going from parts to watch in one event. Evolution is cumulative.
[spoiler]To more accurately represent evolution you would have to shake your box practically indefinitely, millions of millions of billions of times, each step saving the assemblages that could eventually make up a watch.[/spoiler]
3.) In addition to above, your watch comes into existence in one complete step, making an elegant item that does not resemble your piles of metal at all. Evolution builds on stages.
[spoiler]Species grow different gradually through the generations. A species on its gradually shading continuum of change and its offspring will be practically indistinguishable from each other, but the creature and the one at the end of the spectrum will be as if two completely different organisms. Again, you would have to keep the increasingly complex assemblages from the box and you would be able to watch as it becomes more and more watch like. We do not observe complex new creatures in the fossil record, rather we see them changing from a line of gradually dissimilar ancestors.[/spoiler]
4.) You are expecting a watch from watch parts, while evolution has thousands more parts from which it can make anything it wishes.
[spoiler]You can't use your analogy as a representation of evolution, but if you added extra parts and kept any kind of trinket or functional piece that came out, while preserving and discarding those appropriate.[/spoiler]
Even with all of these changes, it is not a very good analogy for the mechanisms of evolution. But it is far better than your implausible caricature.
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/9/2015 6:10:12 AM[quote]...but evolution isn't a prediction...[/quote]Agreed. It's a fallacy since it's speculated areas possess no evidence.[quote]...its a conclusion on the observed evidence.[/quote]NEWSFLASH: You can't observe evolution. A rock is still a rock, and an amoeba is still an amoeba. I like to see those two to make something more out of nothing.[quote]...and the prediction you quoted, has nothing to do with evolution.[/quote]Replier fails to see how this is a fail for and by evolutionists. If you observe Armstrong when he forced the flag into the ground of the moon, he had a little bit of trouble since the scientists at the time stated that the surface was to be soft enough for the flag pole to penetrate. [spoiler]*fail*[/spoiler][quote]The fossil record will never be complete since fossils do not form for every animal in every environmental condition.[/quote]Sure, I'll agree with that excuse. After millions to billions of life existing on our planet, a little less than a thousand can be found for not even one species. How observant sir? How observant?[quote]It takes somewhat specific circumstances for fossilization. So gaps are anticipated.[/quote]How many chances does an organism get to be fossilized after an almost infinite amount of time to be part of some type of sedimentary? Hypothetically speaking.[quote]As for DNA, I don't [b]think[/b] you understand how it works.[/quote]As for that statement, you made no good observation and haven't backed your reasoning with evidence. Thank you for being quite cooperative.
-
And dust on the moon affects evolution how?
-
[spoiler]*sigh*[/spoiler]
-
Source for the amount of dust that this quote claim falls to earth all the time?
-
[spoiler]*addressed*[/spoiler]
-
[quote]...I see some of these morons believing it and agreeing and it drives me crazy.[/quote]I meant to ask you who are the morons and what are they believing?
-
Edited by Britton: 5/5/2015 3:59:09 AMSelected answer is case and point.
-
It's a serious question. You made the statement, and I know this is a little off topic, but frankly, you are the only individual on these forums that I know who is very informative but has a nasty habit of entertaining his grammar with vague pronoun usage. So what is "it" and who are the "morons" you stated earlier because I'm under the impression that you meant "morons" as in everyone, and "it" as the OP. Correct? If not, bloody answer the question already. It's not a difficult request.
-
Morons are the people buying into your reasoning and it is indeed the OP
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/5/2015 10:45:08 PMThank you. It's not difficult.[spoiler]...but I have to say that it also is encouraging.[/spoiler]
-
I actually would like it if they would discern all information for themselves. Just because my reasoning appears logically doesn't mean that they should automatically take it at face value. I find your news quite encouraging actually.
-
What news? That your position in this thread drives me insane?
-
-
How on earth is that encouraging? You enjoy spreading lies?
-
No, annoying you and hearing people reading the OP and my responses.
-
Good news, they're reading the rebuttals too. And those rebuttals more than adequately tear down you responses. GG
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/5/2015 4:01:45 AMGG? ...and I'm actually getting more "evolution doesn't explain that" statements more than I am getting good rebuttals.
-
Go figure. More people are ignorant than informed.
-
I have no idea how providing more information as to one's view about origins is so informative that it makes people ignorant, but hey, you clicked on the forum. If you don't like it, ignore it. This doesn't concern skeptics, but those that are already at a state of ignorance before.
-
It concerns all because what you're doing undermines basic scientific understanding.
-
[quote]It concerns all...[/quote]Agreed.
-
Basic scientific understanding? I highly doubt that. If so, quote me. It shouldn't be that difficult if you are so convinced.
-
Your entire OP. Classic misrepresentation
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/5/2015 6:31:54 AMHow? You haven't quoted me or even whatever is in the OP to make a point. I'm sorry that I can't go back in time, grab those statements that we exchanged, and put them in-the-now. So, if you wouldn't mind, please provide insight.
-
Actually i ve already quoted the entire OP, and provided a rebuttal point by point. Scroll down and read it.
