{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/27/2015 6:06:26 AM
1
"This post has been marked as the answer to this Question topic."
But nobody knows why, because it doesn't answer shit.
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/27/2015 4:11:26 PMI made it that way so that more people can see the point to a good analogy.
-
This is a terrible analogy. There's only one way the watch will fit together. There are thousands of trillions of ways a functioning organism can fit together. The watch has a few dozen parts? That's literally nothing compared to the number of base pairs in even a single-cell organism.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 6/6/2015 5:29:57 AM[quote]This is a terrible analogy.[/quote]The "opinionated statement is obviously an opinion" cliche.[quote]There's only one way the watch will fit together.[/quote]That's the point. I like to see you grow algae off of a recently cooled piece of sedimentary with only light and that rock.[quote]There are thousands of trillions of ways a functioning organism can fit together.[/quote]Name ten. Have you ever thought of putting any amount of proteins in space? What would happen? With crushing weight, oxygen deprived atmosphere, constantly dramatic weather patterns, etc, a lot of people like to assume life can come from that.[quote]...the watch has a few dozen parts?[/quote]And?[quote]That's literally nothing compared to the number of base pairs in even a single-cell organism.[/quote]Does your point automatically support the OP? Because that is now my assumption.
-
I already named ten for you. Do you suffer from short term memory loss or amnesia? Which is it?
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 6/1/2015 1:27:37 PMDude, your examples are not disagreeable and they don't act as an anti-thesis against my beliefs. What's your problem?[spoiler]And when and where did you answer my "how to make an organism questions?" You haven't specified at all.[/spoiler]
-
I've given up on you. You clearly don't know how to formulate an argument, or you purposely pass off flawed logic as being valid. You use testimonies from many millennia ago as facts. You ignore any logical argument that your opponent uses and try to find holes in their argument where none or very few exist. If you are an adult, which you claim, then you clearly are an incredibly stupid person. If you are a child, which I believe to be the case, then there is still hope for you and I pray (I use this word ironically) that you see the error of your ways.
-
So please name a few of those ways that a human can fit together cause I think there's only two
-
there are more than two pieces to human dna. there's literally millions upon millions of different combinations and traits.
-
Yet they only affect physical cosmetics, resulting in the wide variety of variants per species. How observant.
-
Literally every human that ever lived and functioned properly was unique. The watch will only work with one specific combination of pieces. There's no one specific combination of pieces for humans. Sure, the general shape is the same, but there are several major differences. Any such difference in the watch would make it unable to function.
-
[quote]Literally every human that ever lived and functioned properly was unique. The watch will only work with one specific combination of pieces. There's no one specific combination of pieces for humans. Sure, the general shape is the same, but there are several major differences.[/quote]Per human?[quote]Any such difference in the watch would make it unable to function.[/quote]That's why in this hypothetical scenario there are store brands that vary not only in shape and size but also in price and design.
-
I see your point but it's not a very good one because you need the same parts for every human and using your point, which is completely logical but in my view flawed, there is extra information that you need along with the basic components.
-
Do you know what DNA is? Essentially, DNA is the instruction manual for contrasting the organism. Everyone human's DNA is 99.9% identical, but that .1% still includes billions of base pairs. If you tried to put the watch together doing a billion things slightly differently, it would not work. That's not even the biggest problem with the watch analogy either.
-
And I don't see how this interferes with my statement
-
Because you clearly don't understand how complex a living organism is. The "pieces" go much deeper than organs.
-
Yet they manifested from simpler beginnings?
-
No I understand how complex an organism is. I just also understand that you still need the basic components before you can add the complex ones
-
Is this an argument for or against evolution cause it seems to be against
-
No, it's an explanation of why the watch analogy is terrible. It shows a very poor understanding of genetics, natural selection, and evolution in general.
-
So why was it in response to my comment?
-
Because you seem to think the watch analogy actually makes sense.
-
Where does it not
-
I've already explained why this is a terrible analogy for evolution, but I'll do it again because you seem a bit slow. 1) There's only one combination of parts that will make a functioning watch. There are hundreds of trillions of combinations to make functioning organisms. 2) Evolution doesn't have the most complex organisms simply coming into existence, as in the watch analogy. Evolution describes how simple organisms grew into more complex organisms. 3) Evolution isn't entirely random. Shaking the watch pieces is completely random. Evolution has random components such as mutation and genetic drift, but natural selection, the most important factor, is anything but random. If you think the watch analogy makes any sense at all in regards to evolution, you clearly don't understand the subject. I'm guessing this is the case, because you have yet to respond using any logic or science, even bad logic or science. You just keep dodging all my points. In your next reply, please make it clear that you both read and understood my explanations, and give logical arguments of your own.
-
Ok I see how it is a poor analogy for evolution it would have better been used in response to the creation of life
-
A bit better, but still not perfect. Besides, science doesn't have a clear answer as to the origin of life. Evolution describes how existing life changed over time.
