The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I answered this post in his Christian topic:
"Forest Fan wrote:
> Doughboy writes the following from
>
> http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Ok. Let's read this.
> 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.
The have, but carry on. :-)
> 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.
Yep. Energy is conserved. Correct. :-)
> 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.
Well, we haven't quite worked out where all this matter and energy originally came from, but we sort of know what we've got with us now. ;-)
> 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.
That flies lay their eggs on the meat that hatch from there. Very good.
Doesn't disprove evolution yet though! ;-)
> Science at one
> point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things
> don't come from dead ones.
Yep. Science never starts with the answers, usually works them out in the end. That's why we NOW know how it all worked, because scientists studied the problem and found the answers.
So hooray for science, right?
> 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.
And that seems to be right so far...
Organisms slowly evolved from energy and atomic reactions (I don't know the exact details how and I don't think scientists have recreated it in a lab, hence the lack of SOLID PROOF, but it seems like a sensible suggestion). :-)
> 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.
That energy spreads around. Yep. :-)
> 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.
Aye up!
Who said anything about life being about order?
Who said anything about order being about complexity?
You (and Doughboy) seem to lack knowledge of chaos.
It's not COMPLETELY random, just seemingly random because it's so complex.
And order rises out of the randomness in the forms of "never exactly the same, but similar" patterns.
Take for instance photons. We can't see what they do, we can just detect where they start (where the experimentalist ejects them) and where they end up (where the sensor picks them up).
What they do, and where they go is seemlingly random.
Yet put a load of them together than although the same chaos ensues, order crops up in the form of waves.
So we can measure light in waves, even though it is made up of billions of randomly moving photon light particles.
Sea waves and ripples in water are another good example.
The individual water particles are moving around "randomly" (not really randomly because at an atomic scale, their paths follows the mechanics) as far as we can see. But patterns emerge in the randomness and that's what chaos is.
No two ripples or waves are the same, but often sort of similar.
Worth reading into chaos.
> 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.
It doesn't make life impossible.
Quite the opposite.
This randomness allows more possibilities to happen (wheras order would have little change) which would eventually result in life.
And although life is chaotic, order forms through the chaos and patterns emerge.
Take the fact that the biggest African cities were often located by a river. Did the original settlers think "Okay, let's build all our big cities by the river", or did the inhabitants just randomly settle anywhere, and the people who settled by the river had the most sucess in living, so more people went to those river settlements.
And so they became the largest.
Understand? :-)
> 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.
No it doesn't!
Learn your sceince properly! :-P
> 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.
It is?
> 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.
Not decay. SPREAD!
> 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.
So energy spreads, and information gets distorted as it gets passed around (just like in Chinese whispers!! :-)).
That doesn't disprove evolution.
> 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.
Never mind the sun putting more energy into the system.
Although the world is in a state of entropy, it won't have finished distributing the energy for a LONG time.
Besides, there must be hundreds of natural systems that return energy into concentrated parts.
The most obvious one is plants absorbing light and converting it to chemical energy (which we eat).
I can't think of any examples that don't involve life, but I'm not a geoligist! :-)
> 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.
But atleast SOME of the gas will end up in the engine which will be enough to start it and get it going. And that's how it all starts.
> If the
> sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but
> rather speeds up decay!
It doesn't produce growth of the dead plant.
It produces growth of the insects and micro-organisms breaking it down, "decaying" it.
> If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in
> complexity in growth.
Yeps. :-)
> 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*
I'm sure they don't, except for the confused ones.
> This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the
> theory of evolution has.
Really? Even though it's be WITNESSED in a laboratory?
> 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.)
No one has to accept is but they're defying common sense.
> 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.
Or they thought he was a nut and ignored him.
Perhaps they should've had the respect to disprove his arguments rather than ignore the kid.
Besides, it doesn't prompt a reply, just makes a statement."
The only thing I'd add here, is to read Duck's post, which put it even better than mine and answered some of my own questions. :-)
"Forest Fan wrote:
> Doughboy writes the following from
>
> http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Ok. Let's read this.
> 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.
The have, but carry on. :-)
> 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.
Yep. Energy is conserved. Correct. :-)
> 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.
Well, we haven't quite worked out where all this matter and energy originally came from, but we sort of know what we've got with us now. ;-)
> 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.
That flies lay their eggs on the meat that hatch from there. Very good.
Doesn't disprove evolution yet though! ;-)
> Science at one
> point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things
> don't come from dead ones.
Yep. Science never starts with the answers, usually works them out in the end. That's why we NOW know how it all worked, because scientists studied the problem and found the answers.
So hooray for science, right?
> 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.
And that seems to be right so far...
Organisms slowly evolved from energy and atomic reactions (I don't know the exact details how and I don't think scientists have recreated it in a lab, hence the lack of SOLID PROOF, but it seems like a sensible suggestion). :-)
> 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.
That energy spreads around. Yep. :-)
> 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.
Aye up!
Who said anything about life being about order?
Who said anything about order being about complexity?
You (and Doughboy) seem to lack knowledge of chaos.
It's not COMPLETELY random, just seemingly random because it's so complex.
And order rises out of the randomness in the forms of "never exactly the same, but similar" patterns.
Take for instance photons. We can't see what they do, we can just detect where they start (where the experimentalist ejects them) and where they end up (where the sensor picks them up).
What they do, and where they go is seemlingly random.
Yet put a load of them together than although the same chaos ensues, order crops up in the form of waves.
So we can measure light in waves, even though it is made up of billions of randomly moving photon light particles.
Sea waves and ripples in water are another good example.
The individual water particles are moving around "randomly" (not really randomly because at an atomic scale, their paths follows the mechanics) as far as we can see. But patterns emerge in the randomness and that's what chaos is.
No two ripples or waves are the same, but often sort of similar.
Worth reading into chaos.
> 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.
It doesn't make life impossible.
Quite the opposite.
This randomness allows more possibilities to happen (wheras order would have little change) which would eventually result in life.
And although life is chaotic, order forms through the chaos and patterns emerge.
Take the fact that the biggest African cities were often located by a river. Did the original settlers think "Okay, let's build all our big cities by the river", or did the inhabitants just randomly settle anywhere, and the people who settled by the river had the most sucess in living, so more people went to those river settlements.
And so they became the largest.
Understand? :-)
> 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.
No it doesn't!
Learn your sceince properly! :-P
> 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.
It is?
> 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.
Not decay. SPREAD!
> 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.
So energy spreads, and information gets distorted as it gets passed around (just like in Chinese whispers!! :-)).
That doesn't disprove evolution.
> 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.
Never mind the sun putting more energy into the system.
Although the world is in a state of entropy, it won't have finished distributing the energy for a LONG time.
Besides, there must be hundreds of natural systems that return energy into concentrated parts.
The most obvious one is plants absorbing light and converting it to chemical energy (which we eat).
I can't think of any examples that don't involve life, but I'm not a geoligist! :-)
> 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.
But atleast SOME of the gas will end up in the engine which will be enough to start it and get it going. And that's how it all starts.
> If the
> sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but
> rather speeds up decay!
It doesn't produce growth of the dead plant.
It produces growth of the insects and micro-organisms breaking it down, "decaying" it.
> If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in
> complexity in growth.
Yeps. :-)
> 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*
I'm sure they don't, except for the confused ones.
> This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the
> theory of evolution has.
Really? Even though it's be WITNESSED in a laboratory?
> 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.)
No one has to accept is but they're defying common sense.
> 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.
Or they thought he was a nut and ignored him.
Perhaps they should've had the respect to disprove his arguments rather than ignore the kid.
Besides, it doesn't prompt a reply, just makes a statement."
The only thing I'd add here, is to read Duck's post, which put it even better than mine and answered some of my own questions. :-)
Flockhart wrote:
> mutation is when a new genetic deformity appears
> evolution is when that deformity proves sucessful and beneficial to
> the creature,so the deformity becomes widespread and becomes the
> norm.
> i apologise if my wording isnt completely correct
100% correct.
Mutation is the 'changing' of the genetic structure of a being.
Evolution is a term that describes how the process advances the species, or how it changes into another type of species.
> mutation is when a new genetic deformity appears
> evolution is when that deformity proves sucessful and beneficial to
> the creature,so the deformity becomes widespread and becomes the
> norm.
> i apologise if my wording isnt completely correct
100% correct.
Mutation is the 'changing' of the genetic structure of a being.
Evolution is a term that describes how the process advances the species, or how it changes into another type of species.
mutation is when a new genetic deformity appears
evolution is when that deformity proves sucessful and beneficial to the creature,so the deformity becomes widespread and becomes the norm.
i apologise if my wording isnt completely correct
evolution is when that deformity proves sucessful and beneficial to the creature,so the deformity becomes widespread and becomes the norm.
i apologise if my wording isnt completely correct
funny.
I think you'll find the term is 'mutated' though.
I think you'll find the term is 'mutated' though.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> you can see how the chain goes though -
>
> fish
> mammals (such as whales)
> amphibians
> reptiles
> birds
> etc
>
> the reason a cow and a dolphin are so different is because they have
> lived in different environments for so many years. their life
> systems and bodies have to adapt to what they deal with in their
> lives - a cow has no need for a blow hole, therefore it has lost it
> over time. flippers are no good to a cow either, so over time it has
> developed legs.
>
> it's no different from people who happen to be born with 6 fingers on
> each hand for example.
True, they evolved because they have mobiles with buttons on the side.
Obviously.
> you can see how the chain goes though -
>
> fish
> mammals (such as whales)
> amphibians
> reptiles
> birds
> etc
>
> the reason a cow and a dolphin are so different is because they have
> lived in different environments for so many years. their life
> systems and bodies have to adapt to what they deal with in their
> lives - a cow has no need for a blow hole, therefore it has lost it
> over time. flippers are no good to a cow either, so over time it has
> developed legs.
>
> it's no different from people who happen to be born with 6 fingers on
> each hand for example.
True, they evolved because they have mobiles with buttons on the side.
Obviously.
you can see how the chain goes though -
fish
mammals (such as whales)
amphibians
reptiles
birds
etc
the reason a cow and a dolphin are so different is because they have lived in different environments for so many years. their life systems and bodies have to adapt to what they deal with in their lives - a cow has no need for a blow hole, therefore it has lost it over time. flippers are no good to a cow either, so over time it has developed legs.
it's no different from people who happen to be born with 6 fingers on each hand for example.
fish
mammals (such as whales)
amphibians
reptiles
birds
etc
the reason a cow and a dolphin are so different is because they have lived in different environments for so many years. their life systems and bodies have to adapt to what they deal with in their lives - a cow has no need for a blow hole, therefore it has lost it over time. flippers are no good to a cow either, so over time it has developed legs.
it's no different from people who happen to be born with 6 fingers on each hand for example.
The idea that the dolphin derived from a cow makes me laugh alone.
They teach this at school. No matter how fast the process it is impossible. Where would the cow get the material? flesh? The scales? Mucus lining? Rid of fur and swap it for slime? Suddenly generate a blow hole and this infact is somehow connected to the wind pipe??
Each time the cow got close it would drown! ... madness to me..
My view.
i never have thought that Evolution is the answer and my Chemistry teacher agrees.. which is weird
They teach this at school. No matter how fast the process it is impossible. Where would the cow get the material? flesh? The scales? Mucus lining? Rid of fur and swap it for slime? Suddenly generate a blow hole and this infact is somehow connected to the wind pipe??
Each time the cow got close it would drown! ... madness to me..
My view.
i never have thought that Evolution is the answer and my Chemistry teacher agrees.. which is weird
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> And when the evolutionist wins the point, the creationist shouts
> random quotes at them and damns them to an eternity in hell.
Unless they embrace Jesus. He's been dead 2000+ years, no thanks.
> And when the evolutionist wins the point, the creationist shouts
> random quotes at them and damns them to an eternity in hell.
Unless they embrace Jesus. He's been dead 2000+ years, no thanks.
Thank you Forest Fan, you have changed my life.
I now eat nothing but bean sprouts and spent my days with a combination of doses from priests and the Good book, in between my hours of flaging. Aah, the joy of Christ.
I now eat nothing but bean sprouts and spent my days with a combination of doses from priests and the Good book, in between my hours of flaging. Aah, the joy of Christ.
Forest Fan wrote:
> WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE
> POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
And when the evolutionist wins the point, the creationist shouts random quotes at them and damns them to an eternity in hell.
> WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE
> POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
And when the evolutionist wins the point, the creationist shouts random quotes at them and damns them to an eternity in hell.
Page: