11th December 2005, 5:49 AM
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we're done
1.) Your photocopy/natural selection theory doesn't apply to why an arthropod looks like a specific type of plant life complete with the ability to understand why it and how it should act like a plant and actually make something that looks like an ancient cricket in to a softwood birch which is a major change as the animal now looks and acts like a completely different catagory of life. A cat turning in to a whale (using your idea of randomness with natural selection) actually makes more sense because atleast a cat and whale are both mammals but as we know, this is not found any any animal or any catagory of animal. A color change, like in a snowy area a white wolf will have better survival rates than a black wolf has merit and can be applied, but for the wolf to suddenly start looking like an Elk to fool its prey is an absurd idea, just as absurd as saying that a cricket randomly turns in to a tree-like shape over time while other crickets in the same area who have the same prey with the same predators looks like a normal cricket with just slight modifications to color and size. The fridge will always look like a fridge and have characteristics of a fridge, it will be blocky and have alot of mass. Those factors may change slightly and will look like different appliances of its ilk but the fridge will never look like a plant.
2.) All living things can (and have) evolved. While contracting a disease could be considered a more natural process towards mutation or evolution of the host genes, all cancers have been found to be caused by mostly man-made influences and could possibly lead us on to a path of discovery in new gene types that resist cancers like sharks however (like in sharks) just because you can get 'sick' doesn't mean you have the ability to evolve. Sharks cannot any type of cancer and obviously they evolve and have done for quite some time. All things evolve, even the Earth itself. In fact lets use that as a good example of mutation versus evolution; Wind will slowly erode rock formations in to a smoother shape over time that is better suited for aerodynamic characteristics so that even a strong wind wont harm the rock formation, but a sudden earthquake might drastically change its structure or topple it completely. Evolution is progress to become more suited to the environment, mutation is a drastic change internally and is usually destructive.
3.) Your robot head theory (I cant believe i'm actually still typing right now) does not explain many factors that we witness in bacteria or unicell organisms such as a need to infect, absorb, devide, process one form of energy in to another and exist functionally by itself or as part of a larger group to construct larger organisms and work in unison towards a common goal.
You are becoming random and you're making no sense. I have presented an argument (for the 78th time in this thread) and you have not given factual information to support any claim other than rediculous comparisons to a copy machine, a refridgerator and a robot head.
1.) Your photocopy/natural selection theory doesn't apply to why an arthropod looks like a specific type of plant life complete with the ability to understand why it and how it should act like a plant and actually make something that looks like an ancient cricket in to a softwood birch which is a major change as the animal now looks and acts like a completely different catagory of life. A cat turning in to a whale (using your idea of randomness with natural selection) actually makes more sense because atleast a cat and whale are both mammals but as we know, this is not found any any animal or any catagory of animal. A color change, like in a snowy area a white wolf will have better survival rates than a black wolf has merit and can be applied, but for the wolf to suddenly start looking like an Elk to fool its prey is an absurd idea, just as absurd as saying that a cricket randomly turns in to a tree-like shape over time while other crickets in the same area who have the same prey with the same predators looks like a normal cricket with just slight modifications to color and size. The fridge will always look like a fridge and have characteristics of a fridge, it will be blocky and have alot of mass. Those factors may change slightly and will look like different appliances of its ilk but the fridge will never look like a plant.
2.) All living things can (and have) evolved. While contracting a disease could be considered a more natural process towards mutation or evolution of the host genes, all cancers have been found to be caused by mostly man-made influences and could possibly lead us on to a path of discovery in new gene types that resist cancers like sharks however (like in sharks) just because you can get 'sick' doesn't mean you have the ability to evolve. Sharks cannot any type of cancer and obviously they evolve and have done for quite some time. All things evolve, even the Earth itself. In fact lets use that as a good example of mutation versus evolution; Wind will slowly erode rock formations in to a smoother shape over time that is better suited for aerodynamic characteristics so that even a strong wind wont harm the rock formation, but a sudden earthquake might drastically change its structure or topple it completely. Evolution is progress to become more suited to the environment, mutation is a drastic change internally and is usually destructive.
3.) Your robot head theory (I cant believe i'm actually still typing right now) does not explain many factors that we witness in bacteria or unicell organisms such as a need to infect, absorb, devide, process one form of energy in to another and exist functionally by itself or as part of a larger group to construct larger organisms and work in unison towards a common goal.
You are becoming random and you're making no sense. I have presented an argument (for the 78th time in this thread) and you have not given factual information to support any claim other than rediculous comparisons to a copy machine, a refridgerator and a robot head.