The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
Page:
How do you explain breaking the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. Look forward to see how you can explain this blatant contradiction of science.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Not really, I can't see the point of these random genetic changes.
They affect physical characteristics. DNA dictates certain physical characteristics, so changes in DNA will give different physical characteristics.
Some of these differences will enhance an organism's chances of survival and reporduction.
Simple.
> Anyway this idea of "survival of the fittest" is illogical
> and racist. That is what Hitler based his theories on. He said the
> Aryans were the master race, it is all survival of the fittest, just
> kill the Jews, Gyspseys, Homo-sexuals and Blacks. So, this
> "survival of the fittest" is deadly when it comes to
> humans, the whole logic is absurd.
LOL :^D
'Survival of the fittest is racist' - fantastic!
I'm sure you'd acknowledge that all the violence and bloodshed committed in the name of Christianity in no way affects the credibility of its fundamental ideas - it only exposes the mongs who abuse or misunderstand the principles.
Please don't use double standards. It's racist.
:^D
> Nope, life has not gradually changed, man would not look any
> different today than a few thousand years ago. Man, however grows at
> a rate of about 0.5cm per 60 years though, so man was shorter
> thousands of years ago. This is to do with man EATING more, i.e.
> hundreds of years ago man only had two meals, today most people have
> three meals plus snacks. Also, more minerals have been made available
> to boost supplement levels.
A few thousand years. You've not seen any obvious changes in this time period.
Evolution takes place over *millions* of years. Hundreds of millions. A couple of thousand is a drop in the ocean in comparison.
Still, despite this short time period, there have been changes. You see people with 6 fingers crop up sometimes - a mutation, but society doesn't like 'different' people, so they have no chance to go on to become the normal. Many pathalogical criminals have an extra Y chromosome - an example of how an organism could, potentially, gain extra chromosomes (a pair would probably be necessary, that just occurs less often).
Your height example is a good one - generally this won't be a genetic mutation, but will be natural selection - women generally tend to be attracted to taller men.
Height is controlled by a number of genes, to simplify it a bit, you could have 8 genes involved, 6 'tall' genes, 2 'short' genes. You pass on 4 genes to your kid, its mother does the same. If you have mostly 'tall' genes, your kid is likely to get more 'tall' genes itself, and so will usually be fairly tall. In this exapmle your kid could expect to get 3 tall and 1 short from you, though it could be 4-0, or 2-2.
So, women generally tend to breed with taller men, very gradually propogating the 'tall' genes and lessening 'short' genes.
Consequently, people get a bit taller.
Food no doubt also plays a part, but partly it is genetic.
> Not really, I can't see the point of these random genetic changes.
They affect physical characteristics. DNA dictates certain physical characteristics, so changes in DNA will give different physical characteristics.
Some of these differences will enhance an organism's chances of survival and reporduction.
Simple.
> Anyway this idea of "survival of the fittest" is illogical
> and racist. That is what Hitler based his theories on. He said the
> Aryans were the master race, it is all survival of the fittest, just
> kill the Jews, Gyspseys, Homo-sexuals and Blacks. So, this
> "survival of the fittest" is deadly when it comes to
> humans, the whole logic is absurd.
LOL :^D
'Survival of the fittest is racist' - fantastic!
I'm sure you'd acknowledge that all the violence and bloodshed committed in the name of Christianity in no way affects the credibility of its fundamental ideas - it only exposes the mongs who abuse or misunderstand the principles.
Please don't use double standards. It's racist.
:^D
> Nope, life has not gradually changed, man would not look any
> different today than a few thousand years ago. Man, however grows at
> a rate of about 0.5cm per 60 years though, so man was shorter
> thousands of years ago. This is to do with man EATING more, i.e.
> hundreds of years ago man only had two meals, today most people have
> three meals plus snacks. Also, more minerals have been made available
> to boost supplement levels.
A few thousand years. You've not seen any obvious changes in this time period.
Evolution takes place over *millions* of years. Hundreds of millions. A couple of thousand is a drop in the ocean in comparison.
Still, despite this short time period, there have been changes. You see people with 6 fingers crop up sometimes - a mutation, but society doesn't like 'different' people, so they have no chance to go on to become the normal. Many pathalogical criminals have an extra Y chromosome - an example of how an organism could, potentially, gain extra chromosomes (a pair would probably be necessary, that just occurs less often).
Your height example is a good one - generally this won't be a genetic mutation, but will be natural selection - women generally tend to be attracted to taller men.
Height is controlled by a number of genes, to simplify it a bit, you could have 8 genes involved, 6 'tall' genes, 2 'short' genes. You pass on 4 genes to your kid, its mother does the same. If you have mostly 'tall' genes, your kid is likely to get more 'tall' genes itself, and so will usually be fairly tall. In this exapmle your kid could expect to get 3 tall and 1 short from you, though it could be 4-0, or 2-2.
So, women generally tend to breed with taller men, very gradually propogating the 'tall' genes and lessening 'short' genes.
Consequently, people get a bit taller.
Food no doubt also plays a part, but partly it is genetic.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Hmm.. just read the initial post.
>
> A load of pretentious waffle really. Complete crap, to sum it up.
What, can't argue with science can you? Not when a theory breaks the second law of thermodynamics! Face it evolutionists, EVOLUTION is impossible, the second law of thermodynamics tells you that, so just accept it and move on from sea slime and monkeys.
> Hmm.. just read the initial post.
>
> A load of pretentious waffle really. Complete crap, to sum it up.
What, can't argue with science can you? Not when a theory breaks the second law of thermodynamics! Face it evolutionists, EVOLUTION is impossible, the second law of thermodynamics tells you that, so just accept it and move on from sea slime and monkeys.
Strafio wrote:
> It was an article his brother wrote, so it's worth a look, but I
> couldn't take it all. :-)
>
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Good we agree it can NEVER be solidly PROVED.
>
> But it can NEVER be solidly DISPROVED either.
>
>
>
>
> Each time the ship was still MADE i.e. CREATED. People had to build
> it from materials. There was not a tree that magically transformed
> into a boat, now was there?
>
> Well, I'd bet that the first boat was a tree that someone cut a seat
> into...
>
> Ok.
> But that's what evolution is.
> We aren't the same people that we evolved from.
> I mean, the monkey didn't cut off his tail, shave off his hair and
> then reproduce. His offspring gradually grew smaller tails and lost
> all their hair because they were in the way, and gradually, each
> generation became more like us.
>
But the monkeys did not become extinct or anything? Monkeys are happy in the zoo, they have no problems being there, there is no problems with there tails, so why would they not want the,?
>
> Just like each new boat had a little change to it, each generation of
> monkey had a little change to them.
> The ones with good changes survived best to reproduce, and the next
> generation was more like them with new changes.
>
> Just like the design of boats evolved, the genetic code of monkey's
> evolved. And we're the result.
But why did the genetic code change?
>
> But each ship was created from new each time. Or if they wanted to
> change a ship, again it was CREATED from the ship, rather than it
> evolving.
>
> You don't mis-understand the word evolution.
> You seem to have your definition from Xmen comics where people mutate
> special powers after being hit by radiation.
>
> REAL evolution is a result of small changes between the parent and
> the child, adding up over thousands of generations.
> You're right in that the ship itself didn't evolve (because ships
> don't reproduce like living things do) but the DESIGN of the ship
> evolved.
>
> Understand? :-)
But children DO NOT evolve, their genes simply reflect those of the parents. If they were to have a face change when they were older, it would not change their genetics one bit.
>
> In less than a FEW thousand years boats have been created.
>
> Well they'd been around a LONG while before Jesus' time.
> 8000 BC was a guess, but I'd bet they'd been back longer.
>
The world has only been around for about 6000BC. The first human body is only from 5200BC.
>
> So you think it is a case of survival of the fittest. But why would
> the genetics change anway.
>
> I think Dr Duck can answer that one better than I can, but all sorts
> of things can change your genetic code. Mutation can come from
> radiation, things you eat. etc.
>
> I remained no less skeptical of EVOLUTION, then before I started
> discussing it.
>
> I think you already believed in evolution, but just called it
> adaption.
Not really, In the beginning GOD CREATED...
> It was an article his brother wrote, so it's worth a look, but I
> couldn't take it all. :-)
>
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Good we agree it can NEVER be solidly PROVED.
>
> But it can NEVER be solidly DISPROVED either.
>
>
>
>
> Each time the ship was still MADE i.e. CREATED. People had to build
> it from materials. There was not a tree that magically transformed
> into a boat, now was there?
>
> Well, I'd bet that the first boat was a tree that someone cut a seat
> into...
>
> Ok.
> But that's what evolution is.
> We aren't the same people that we evolved from.
> I mean, the monkey didn't cut off his tail, shave off his hair and
> then reproduce. His offspring gradually grew smaller tails and lost
> all their hair because they were in the way, and gradually, each
> generation became more like us.
>
But the monkeys did not become extinct or anything? Monkeys are happy in the zoo, they have no problems being there, there is no problems with there tails, so why would they not want the,?
>
> Just like each new boat had a little change to it, each generation of
> monkey had a little change to them.
> The ones with good changes survived best to reproduce, and the next
> generation was more like them with new changes.
>
> Just like the design of boats evolved, the genetic code of monkey's
> evolved. And we're the result.
But why did the genetic code change?
>
> But each ship was created from new each time. Or if they wanted to
> change a ship, again it was CREATED from the ship, rather than it
> evolving.
>
> You don't mis-understand the word evolution.
> You seem to have your definition from Xmen comics where people mutate
> special powers after being hit by radiation.
>
> REAL evolution is a result of small changes between the parent and
> the child, adding up over thousands of generations.
> You're right in that the ship itself didn't evolve (because ships
> don't reproduce like living things do) but the DESIGN of the ship
> evolved.
>
> Understand? :-)
But children DO NOT evolve, their genes simply reflect those of the parents. If they were to have a face change when they were older, it would not change their genetics one bit.
>
> In less than a FEW thousand years boats have been created.
>
> Well they'd been around a LONG while before Jesus' time.
> 8000 BC was a guess, but I'd bet they'd been back longer.
>
The world has only been around for about 6000BC. The first human body is only from 5200BC.
>
> So you think it is a case of survival of the fittest. But why would
> the genetics change anway.
>
> I think Dr Duck can answer that one better than I can, but all sorts
> of things can change your genetic code. Mutation can come from
> radiation, things you eat. etc.
>
> I remained no less skeptical of EVOLUTION, then before I started
> discussing it.
>
> I think you already believed in evolution, but just called it
> adaption.
Not really, In the beginning GOD CREATED...
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> FF agrees with all the pricipals of evolution, but not evolution
> itself.
> Because that would make him a ... *gasp* ... evolutionist.
As I have been saying I am a ... *gasp* ... creationist.
> See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the
> most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
Well there are two big differences, evolutionist or creationist.
> FF agrees with all the pricipals of evolution, but not evolution
> itself.
> Because that would make him a ... *gasp* ... evolutionist.
As I have been saying I am a ... *gasp* ... creationist.
> See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the
> most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
Well there are two big differences, evolutionist or creationist.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Hmm. I'm in 2 minds about reading that.
>
> If you've genuinely taken the time to write it yourself, it'd be rude
> not to.
>
> Then again, if it's just something else that you've quoted (without
> reading again?), to deflect attention from the latest dead-end in
> your argument and boost your word count (I noticed the triple post),
> there's really not much point.
>
> After all, you seem to have agreed that random genetic occurences
> take place, that these changes affect physical characteristics, and
> that organisms with the 'best' genes have the best chance of survival
> and of passing those genes on to a new generation.
Not really, I can't see the point of these random genetic changes. Anyway this idea of "survival of the fittest" is illogical and racist. That is what Hitler based his theories on. He said the Aryans were the master race, it is all survival of the fittest, just kill the Jews, Gyspseys, Homo-sexuals and Blacks. So, this "survival of the fittest" is deadly when it comes to humans, the whole logic is absurd.
> And that's what evolution is.
>
> Whether you believe the first life was created by god or chance,
> surely you've already acknowledged that since that creation, life has
> been changing in this manner called evolution.
Nope, life has not gradually changed, man would not look any different today than a few thousand years ago. Man, however grows at a rate of about 0.5cm per 60 years though, so man was shorter thousands of years ago. This is to do with man EATING more, i.e. hundreds of years ago man only had two meals, today most people have three meals plus snacks. Also, more minerals have been made available to boost supplement levels.
> Putting aside everything else, you seem to have agreed with all this
> already. I just don't see how, after agreeing with those principles,
> anyone could claim evolution doesn't happen :^S
Still, I do not agree with this.
> Hmm. I'm in 2 minds about reading that.
>
> If you've genuinely taken the time to write it yourself, it'd be rude
> not to.
>
> Then again, if it's just something else that you've quoted (without
> reading again?), to deflect attention from the latest dead-end in
> your argument and boost your word count (I noticed the triple post),
> there's really not much point.
>
> After all, you seem to have agreed that random genetic occurences
> take place, that these changes affect physical characteristics, and
> that organisms with the 'best' genes have the best chance of survival
> and of passing those genes on to a new generation.
Not really, I can't see the point of these random genetic changes. Anyway this idea of "survival of the fittest" is illogical and racist. That is what Hitler based his theories on. He said the Aryans were the master race, it is all survival of the fittest, just kill the Jews, Gyspseys, Homo-sexuals and Blacks. So, this "survival of the fittest" is deadly when it comes to humans, the whole logic is absurd.
> And that's what evolution is.
>
> Whether you believe the first life was created by god or chance,
> surely you've already acknowledged that since that creation, life has
> been changing in this manner called evolution.
Nope, life has not gradually changed, man would not look any different today than a few thousand years ago. Man, however grows at a rate of about 0.5cm per 60 years though, so man was shorter thousands of years ago. This is to do with man EATING more, i.e. hundreds of years ago man only had two meals, today most people have three meals plus snacks. Also, more minerals have been made available to boost supplement levels.
> Putting aside everything else, you seem to have agreed with all this
> already. I just don't see how, after agreeing with those principles,
> anyone could claim evolution doesn't happen :^S
Still, I do not agree with this.
Hmm.. just read the initial post.
A load of pretentious waffle really. Complete crap, to sum it up.
A load of pretentious waffle really. Complete crap, to sum it up.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> If you just wanted to say "You need to get laid" you should
> have just said, jeez...
>
> :D
Nah. Because reproduce means it HAS to be with a fertile girl!
You could get round the other one! ;-P
> If you just wanted to say "You need to get laid" you should
> have just said, jeez...
>
> :D
Nah. Because reproduce means it HAS to be with a fertile girl!
You could get round the other one! ;-P
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> FF agrees with all the pricipals of evolution, but not evolution
> itself.
> Because that would make him a ... *gasp* ... evolutionist.
I don't agree with one principle of evolution.
> See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the
> most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
Nope, I let GOD do that.
> FF agrees with all the pricipals of evolution, but not evolution
> itself.
> Because that would make him a ... *gasp* ... evolutionist.
I don't agree with one principle of evolution.
> See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the
> most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
Nope, I let GOD do that.
It was an article his brother wrote, so it's worth a look, but I couldn't take it all. :-)
Forest Fan wrote:
> Good we agree it can NEVER be solidly PROVED.
But it can NEVER be solidly DISPROVED either.
> Each time the ship was still MADE i.e. CREATED. People had to build
> it from materials. There was not a tree that magically transformed
> into a boat, now was there?
Well, I'd bet that the first boat was a tree that someone cut a seat into...
Ok.
But that's what evolution is.
We aren't the same people that we evolved from.
I mean, the monkey didn't cut off his tail, shave off his hair and then reproduce. His offspring gradually grew smaller tails and lost all their hair because they were in the way, and gradually, each generation became more like us.
Just like each new boat had a little change to it, each generation of monkey had a little change to them.
The ones with good changes survived best to reproduce, and the next generation was more like them with new changes.
Just like the design of boats evolved, the genetic code of monkey's evolved. And we're the result.
> But each ship was created from new each time. Or if they wanted to
> change a ship, again it was CREATED from the ship, rather than it
> evolving.
You don't mis-understand the word evolution.
You seem to have your definition from Xmen comics where people mutate special powers after being hit by radiation.
REAL evolution is a result of small changes between the parent and the child, adding up over thousands of generations.
You're right in that the ship itself didn't evolve (because ships don't reproduce like living things do) but the DESIGN of the ship evolved.
Understand? :-)
> In less than a FEW thousand years boats have been created.
Well they'd been around a LONG while before Jesus' time.
8000 BC was a guess, but I'd bet they'd been back longer.
> So you think it is a case of survival of the fittest. But why would
> the genetics change anway.
I think Dr Duck can answer that one better than I can, but all sorts of things can change your genetic code. Mutation can come from radiation, things you eat. etc.
> I remained no less skeptical of EVOLUTION, then before I started
> discussing it.
I think you already believed in evolution, but just called it adaption.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Good we agree it can NEVER be solidly PROVED.
But it can NEVER be solidly DISPROVED either.
> Each time the ship was still MADE i.e. CREATED. People had to build
> it from materials. There was not a tree that magically transformed
> into a boat, now was there?
Well, I'd bet that the first boat was a tree that someone cut a seat into...
Ok.
But that's what evolution is.
We aren't the same people that we evolved from.
I mean, the monkey didn't cut off his tail, shave off his hair and then reproduce. His offspring gradually grew smaller tails and lost all their hair because they were in the way, and gradually, each generation became more like us.
Just like each new boat had a little change to it, each generation of monkey had a little change to them.
The ones with good changes survived best to reproduce, and the next generation was more like them with new changes.
Just like the design of boats evolved, the genetic code of monkey's evolved. And we're the result.
> But each ship was created from new each time. Or if they wanted to
> change a ship, again it was CREATED from the ship, rather than it
> evolving.
You don't mis-understand the word evolution.
You seem to have your definition from Xmen comics where people mutate special powers after being hit by radiation.
REAL evolution is a result of small changes between the parent and the child, adding up over thousands of generations.
You're right in that the ship itself didn't evolve (because ships don't reproduce like living things do) but the DESIGN of the ship evolved.
Understand? :-)
> In less than a FEW thousand years boats have been created.
Well they'd been around a LONG while before Jesus' time.
8000 BC was a guess, but I'd bet they'd been back longer.
> So you think it is a case of survival of the fittest. But why would
> the genetics change anway.
I think Dr Duck can answer that one better than I can, but all sorts of things can change your genetic code. Mutation can come from radiation, things you eat. etc.
> I remained no less skeptical of EVOLUTION, then before I started
> discussing it.
I think you already believed in evolution, but just called it adaption.
Page: