{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by BenjyX55:
5/5/2015 8:19:55 PM
1
[quote][quote]There's only one way the watch can fit together properly. There are hundreds of thousands of trillions of ways to make a functioning organism.[/quote]Name ten.[/quote]
You. Me. The moron who made the false analogy. DeeJ. Your mother. My mother. Obama. Hitler. Einstein. Bill Gates. Ten functioning organisms, each of which are unique.
[quote][quote]Evolution is gradual. The functional organism, or the working watch, doesn't just happen. It takes several steps, several iterations.[/quote]So does a watch.[/quote]
Exactly. It's not as simple of assembling the parts and letting them randomly assemble themselves.
[quote][quote]...mutations that benefit existing conditions. It's far from random.[/quote]Are you implying that mutations are inherently good?[/quote]
Most mutations have no discernible effect, or an inconsequential effect. The mutations that are good or bad are the ones that influence evolution. The mutations that are good are the ones that are more likely to survive within a population.
English
-
No, name ten ways to make a functioning organism.
-
I did. Every organism that has ever lived has been unique. Every watch of the same model will be the same.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/7/2015 4:45:51 AMNo, [b]how[/b]? Not who or what.
-
This is a talk you should have with your parents.
-
I'm not talking about sex.
-
Well that's how organisms are made. Humans, anyway.
-
Alright, let's start with something small. How about amoebas?
-
What are you asking? Small amoebas are made when a bigger amoeba splits. But that's beside the point. There's only one combination of parts for the watch to work. There are theoretically infinite possible genetic combinations for living organisms.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/8/2015 1:10:18 AMLong story short: How was the first amoeba formed? The answer is unexplainable so don't bother attempting to explain unless you for sure have evidential proof (as most Atheists pester to exclaim). The point that I inevitably am going to get to is that evolution has no explanation to the origin of life, an it isn't in any inline sources. So we are not even supposed to exist. So everything finite should have been created by something infinite if we exist. Period. I need this thread to stop. No more responding unless you really have to.
-
You assume I'm an atheist. That's ignorant.
-
Then what are you?
-
That's not relevant to this topic.
-
Then I can only assume Deist.
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 5/8/2015 4:03:13 AMWrong, and no more relevant than it was an hour ago.
-
Theist then?
-
Still not relevant. Stop avoiding the topic at hand. You say you can disprove all of evolution because of a couple of holes. If that were all it took to disprove something, Christianity would no longer exist. The vast amount of evidence for evolution far outweighs a couple of minor gaps.
-
Okay then, but then metaphorically, evolution has a lot of minor holes and some huge holes.
-
Name one hole besides the one you pointed out. Once there is an organism that lives, evolution as we currently understand it works perfectly. Where that original organism game from is still unclear, though several natural and supernatural explanations have been proposed.
-
One Big Hole: Evolution Has No Explanation for the Origin of Organic, Intelligence, and Irreducible Complexity.
-
yep it does, comet bring chemicles together that will "mix" a "soup" together, through that organisms can built
-
I addressed the origin of life. Several hypothesis have been proposed. As for intelligence, it's just another example of natural selection at work. The smarter organisms were better at staying alive, and they were also better at acquiring resources, making them more attractive to mates. This made for more offspring with intelligence genes.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/9/2015 5:31:48 AM[quote]Several hypothesis have been proposed.[/quote]Can you please send a URL address of your source? Thank you.[quote]As for intelligence, it's just another example of natural selection at work.[/quote]How? Natural Selection favors the physical adept. Did Darwin's finches assume that it would be better to "think" their beaks into a specific shape?[quote]The smarter organisms were better at staying alive, and they were also better at acquiring resources, making them more attractive to mates.[/quote]Smartness does not guarantee survival. Hypothetically, if I were to put a hungry lion and an unarmed human in a Roman Colosseum during the mid-first century, how long would it take for the smartest one to win?[quote]This made for more offspring with intelligence genes.[/quote]Intelligence is not a gene. If I married a lady with a Doctorate's and I myself had a Doctorate's, will our children have at least a Master's?
-
You're thinking very small. I'm not going to argue with you further because it's clear you have no grasp of how evolution actually works.
-
[quote]...you have no grasp of how evolution actually works.[/quote]This sentence needs correction. You haven't sourced your info and your thinking goes against what most evolutionists view how evolution operates.
-
You showed your ignorance when you mentioned "thinking beaks into a shape". Intelligence can start with something as simple as knowing "that's a predator, avoid it" or "that's poisonous, don't eat it". As for that lion example, I've got news for you. Life isn't like a gladiator arena. The Romans threw slaves in with the lions knowing full well they were going to die, because even though the slave might be smarter than the lion, he was trapped in an arena where all that mattered was strength. But did you stop to think how the lion got there? That's right, because humans were smart enough to trap it. Why don't you explain how my thinking differs from that of most "evolutionists"? Because, as far as I can tell, I'm just citing basic principles of nature.
