Spirituality
25 Jul 18
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIs there an inanimate object you have in mind sir that adapts to its environment in a similar fashion?
From the evolutionary POV is there any salient difference between how an animate and inanimate object will react to (or act on) its environment?
In other words, are they essentially the same things?
Edit: Please say umbrella.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThere is a very obscure aspect of the theory of evolution, which is only really revealed to true experts who have spent decades studying biology. I'm not ready to fully reveal these mysteries, but I will give you a small hint: reproduction is kind of important.
From the evolutionary POV is there any salient difference between how an animate and inanimate object will react to (or act on) its environment?
In other words, are they essentially the same things?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
09 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraArgumentum ad verecundiam.
There is a very obscure aspect of the theory of evolution, which is only really revealed to true experts who have spent decades studying biology. I'm not ready to fully reveal these mysteries, but I will give you a small hint: reproduction is kind of important.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @proper-knobSo what scientific evidence is there for that that can be repeated in the lab?
Of course.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @proper-knobNo problem with that at all. But how does the environment affect a single celled organism to mutate into a fully functional animal with fur without any intelligent intervention?
A scenario for you.
We have an animal which has fur, it also has a mutation within its genome which means that it has longer fur. This means the animal will be warmer. If this animal lives in a cold environment then that mutation is beneficial, ie good, as it will improve that animals chances of survival. That mutation will then be given to its chil ...[text shortened]... her it's 'good' or 'bad' depends on the environment the animal lives in. Are you with me so far?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
09 Aug 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI'm sure we can all agree that an umbrella exhibits intelligent design.
Is there an inanimate object you have in mind sir that adapts to its environment in a similar fashion?
Edit: Please say umbrella.
Originally posted by @proper-knobYou are saying it isn't a process?
And again, this makes no sense. You don't get to decide what evolution is and isn't Kelly.
09 Aug 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-limeWhat on Earth are you on about?
The significant difference rendering my analogy useless is that the act of storing and keeping (unused, unusable) parts in a box is a directed (not random) process. The parts did not by themselves collect and store themselves because of any perceived potential possibility of future usefulness.
This would be analogous to evolution develop ture early on, and in so doing able to take advantage of any future potential usefulness.
09 Aug 18
Originally posted by @lemon-limeFor example the “salient” difference between a pebble and a human being?
From the evolutionary POV is there any salient difference between how an animate and inanimate object will react to (or act on) its environment? In other words, are they essentially the same things?
09 Aug 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneDid I misunderstand you?
This seems to have become your standard red herring and deflection when faced with a truth that you are unable to reasonably deny. It's dishonest. As is your refusal to admit your reading comprehension problems. Over the years you've shown time and again that you have difficulty comprehending the written word once it reaches a certain level of complexity ...[text shortened]... and get the help you need KJ. There's no shame in it. There is shame in your dishonesty however.
"Why is it that so many Christians are amongst the least humble people around?"
I thought you went from the topic back to Christians, so I thought I'd bring up the question
you have refused to answer. I guess it was just meant to an insult and actually had
nothing to do with the conversation outside of you just wanting to insult.
09 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWell no kidding.
There is a very obscure aspect of the theory of evolution, which is only really revealed to true experts who have spent decades studying biology. I'm not ready to fully reveal these mysteries, but I will give you a small hint: reproduction is kind of important.
Reproduction had to have been a self existing feature right from the start... nothing mystical about that, oh great and wise Swami.
Originally posted by @divegeesterI was thinking of comparing a pebble to a bug. But yes, your comparison works just as well... the salient difference between a pebble and a human being.
For example the “salient” difference between a pebble and a human being?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI should rephrase that question and omit the word "will".
Is there an inanimate object you have in mind sir that adapts to its environment in a similar fashion?
Edit: Please say umbrella.
...is there any salient difference between how an animate and inanimate object reacts to (or acts on) its environment?