Evolution or not?

It is interesting to consider @Optimissed idea that the first living thing could be started at more than one place.Because they are under the same nature,thus there are similarities between them.Think of this wide outer space with almost countless planets and stars.The probability of living thing existant out there is very plausible.

That doesn't answer my question. Try again. I wonder why you avoided it?  Don't have an answer or scared to answer?

Designed by nature(convergent evolution), not supernature. There is evidence of nature, but no sufficient evidence of supernature.

Or in the form of a question.......designed by what? Remember, per your own rules, no religion or politics. 

drpsholder wrote:

einstein99 wrote:

extenza wrote:

I never imagined this carnivorous plants have existed.Surely it isn't in the same evolution branch  with carnivorous mammals.

____________________

They coined a new term for the disparity between a morphological tree and a phylogenetic tree, convergent evolution. I call it common design. 😉

Designed by nature(convergent evolution), not supernature. There is evidence of nature, but no sufficient evidence of supernature.

Or in the form of a question.......designed by what? Remember, per your own rules, no religion or politics. 

______________________

Hey smart guy 😉

If a metaphysical existant existed would he be magical or would we be the magic? ( I think I just met the parameters ).😊

Answer this question smart guy and I'll answer yours. ☺Whales and bats both have the protein pepsin in their echolocation systems. The molecule has 13 nucleotides rearranged from its closest homologue. A designed systyem by an existant or just another hum drum example of convergence ☺ ( And a highly statistically improbability)

But you take as evidence for "design," any result which you don't feel could be generated "randomly."

And your repeat this syllogism, and "your design conclusion," ad nauseum.

Neat trick, don't you think ??

Think Ice Ages. Find timelines. Rethink assumptions. Hum jeopardy song.

Conclusion ?........

zborg wrote:

einstein99 wrote:

It's really laughable if someone wants to consider it as evidence.

But you take as evidence for "design," any result which you don't feel could be generated "randomly."

And your repeat this syllogism, and "your design conclusion," ad nauseum.

Neat trick, don't you think ??

.__________________

If it looks designed Borgman take the inference.

Why can't you understand why this is no problem for evolution?

I've explained you like ten times already. You just pretend you dont see it and mention the MSY thing again.

Don't understand what you want to achieve with that. Everyone reading the thread can read what I write, It's not like it becomes invisible beacuse you ignore it lol.

I am starting to think troll also.

"Carpenter and Roving Intellectual."  End of Story ?  Don't hold your breath.

Again, it was designed by nature..........since there is no sufficient evidence of supernature.

You can dance around this all you want. Its just more entertainment the longer you do.

Try again or just run away from my statements. They show that you either 1)cannot learn or 2)not interested in learning.

If you guys can't win on the merit of the science then accuse them of being a troll. If I'm a troll then you guys are

the keystroke cops or better yet, a bunch of clowns who keep falling off your one wheeled bikes. 😃

I'm still waiting for one piece of science from you guys. If all you have is a baby who takes his fur coat off, then it's no wonder you guys keep bringing it up. Now what kind of fitness advantage does that confer if humans haven't invented clothes yet, and if they have then humans could have been designed with the fur because of a colder climate period ( like the last ice age) in the first place.

It's like telling stories while sitting around a campfire.

Someone please come up with some science over there because I'm about ready to fall asleep over here. 😴

You are correct, this is why trolls are so entertaining. They must appear to be stupid in order to troll.  And saying stupid things is very entertaining to the smart people.

Why do you think I jumped in here?? It certainly wasn't to teach someone who is incapable of being taught. It was to get entertained firsthand. 

 You still can't refute the science.  Try again or just run away because you know you can't. Classic evidence of a troll or someone who is very dumb.

which is it? LOL

Because he's lacking brain cells, was dropped on his head at birth, suffers from hypoxia, etc............but he is definitely not trolling.  No way, no how! 

God made the earth and all the animals and us. Read the bible.

Einstein it's nice to see engaging people just remember the admonition "pearls before swine"

😕.............😕..............😕..................😕..................😴

I grew up around swine on the farm 789. I used to beat them with pipes, this is fun. 😋