I actually meant how photoreceptors on skin through tiny changes and small improvement like being placed in dimples, hollows , eventually being behind lenses etc became a complex eye but we just hit creationist bingo with all the GOD EVOLUTIONISTS ENGINEER etc words newguy is spouting and I tuned out again. Yeah, this is what I did, Tuned into @SireofSuns because he actually was being reasonable later and didn't deserve all the **** we gave him tuned out of Newguy because he is throwing out so many bullshit buzzwords and bullshit he is clearly inside his own asscave so deep he thinks the light coming in through his mouthhole is heaven.
Yes. but it is sort of the reverse. it is a complex sustem dissapearing from a species because it costs /effort to build and maintain on an individual level and has no benefit.
It is very obvious to me that humans created gods while creating their respective holy texts, perhaps somewhat before the writing of the texts. its a time travel paradox. humans/god is someone Firking their mother in the past.
I look at the physical properties of physics and water in our universe to influence eachother to facilitate rain, you look for the guy pissing into a sieve.
Dunno It's like this guy thinks he's the first to think of the "clockmaker argument" that has been brought up endless amount of times and been debunked endless amount of times in this debate. Like somehow nobody else in his life has properly challenged him on his beliefs. Next he'll come with the "you can't prove God doesn't exist"
You have spent decades not understanding the difference between NATURAL selection through enviromental factors and ARTIFICIAL selection through SELECTION BY HUMANS WITH A SPECIFIC GOAL and skipped the entire background on GENETICS and DNA? You concluded that because humans can exploit things through understanding a simple set of rules there must have been some intelligence behind it? sounds like if I can use a shovel to lever dirt around I must conclude dirt must have been designed somehow rather than dirt is stuff, and stuff has weight and mass and by using simple mechanics I can move mass? I doubt you have actually studied it. ah wait I get it... the modern understanding and knowledge on DNA and genetics and how mutations influence gene-expression and the resulting geno- and fenotype and how even things like major changes to Chromosomes splitting or melding together as a result were not discovered yet when you spent decades misunderstanding. I get it.
Please explain to me what you guys now about natural selection since you're all so on top of the subject.
Sok, finally joined the band wagon. I expected more from you. Still, this question exists. My guess is you won't explain what you think you know.
Okay lets go back to basics... all the way back in time to descent with modification and survival of the fittest which are Darwins theories. Tell me at what point you disagree: 1 Living beings have, on average in their lifespan, more descendants than a 1-1 ratio. you with me?
Your logic is faulty and silencing. Also, I don't care what you "expected from me." I gave you more than enough valid discussion to which you mostly replied with mostly one-liners and garbage. You do not deserve more from me at this time.
2.Because resources are often limited and there are more descendants than there is room for in their enviroment only a percentage of any generation will survive to create a new generation. 3. factors in the enviroment ( ability to find food, shelter, A MATE, ability to react and hide from danger) select for traits that allow individuals to succeed in surviving to pass along their traits ( remember this is all before the discovery of DNA and genes) 4. sometimes traits emerge outside of the norm (mutations) if the individual possesing these traits is succesfull ( fit) and passes on his traits to the next generation these traits will spread through the population. ( remember point 1)
This whole, "I am going to ask you questions over and over to which I expect detailed and sourced replies to which I will either ignore or reply with one-liners or snarky remarks" is a bit tiresome, but it does seem to be a fairly common tactic among certain folks here.
Hey buddy, I gave 3 examples of design. Did you eve bother looking at those? No. So saying you've given enough information is laughable.
Which did not answer my question at all, which, if you will recall, was: "Can you furnish evidence of God creating a new species?" I didn't say, "show me some examples of humans showing the mechanicisms behind evolution work." I answered that post in detail, to which you told me my logic is faulty without explaining why, which I STILL answered seriously. Pal. Also... Even you tacitly acknowledged that I took you seriously for a time, otherwise you wouldn't use the term "finally."
