Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously that’s because there is no evidence for you to provide to answer my question.

Or it could mean - I’m not sure what you’re asking could you reframe the question please.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Give an umbrella only a decade to evolve and it will wither away into rubble.

I recommend spending at least 30 minutes thinking about this before replying. (Maybe an hour).

An umbrella will evolve? Is this a joke or are you serious, I can’t work it out.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Or it could mean - I’m not sure what you’re asking could you reframe the question please.

Since you believe ‘evolution’ explains how humans evolved from single celled organisms, what evidence (that is reproducible in the lab) do you have to support this belief?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Give an umbrella only a decade to evolve and it will wither away into rubble.

I recommend spending at least 30 minutes thinking about this before replying. (Maybe an hour).

0.30 seconds was sufficient to dismiss you as a loon.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
0.30 seconds was sufficient to dismiss you as a loon.

The loon is the one that believes the umbrella will evolve into a helicopter.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
An umbrella will evolve? Is this a joke or are you serious, I can’t work it out.

You should ask the ghost he introduced the umbrella to the discussion.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
But do you understand how the mutation which gave it longer fur was only ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because of the environment it lived in?

Yes and as I said before that this type of evolutionary change through natural selection I believe we all can see. Being specific the only thing taking place is those better suited becomes the dominant ones in a niche. I gave an example of white rabbits blending into snow as similar example.

The same thing can not be said about changing life forms over time acquiring organs and systems that happens why? The fur example are existing traits giving advantages immediately, altering DNA to drastically alter life over millions of years has no driving force due to immediate exposure and experience? Imagination is the only thing you can offer to explain how and why.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Since you believe ‘evolution’ explains how humans evolved from single celled organisms, what evidence (that is reproducible in the lab) do you have to support this belief?

Here's a rather hearty wiki page on the evidence of common descent. Feel free to peruse at your leisure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Yes and as I said before that this type of evolutionary change through natural selection I believe we all can see. Being specific the only thing taking place is those better suited becomes the dominant ones in a niche. I gave an example of white rabbits blending into snow as similar example.

The same thing can not be said about changing life forms over ...[text shortened]... ate exposure and experience? Imagination is the only thing you can offer to explain how and why.

The same thing can not be said about changing life forms over time acquiring organs and systems that happens why?

Why not?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You jumped into this conversation just to be an a$$ to me?

I wasn't talking to you and my comment obviously wasn't about you, so put your dummy back in.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No

Then I don't know what you are going about either then.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Here's a rather hearty wiki page on the evidence of common descent. Feel free to peruse at your leisure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

As expected nothing that can be reproduced in a lab.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
[b]The same thing can not be said about changing life forms over time acquiring organs and systems that happens why?

Why not?[/b]

Possibility of errors where what occurs destroys something required for life to continue as is, even without improving. A death of a thousand errors would occur long before one random mutation works in unison with a previous random mutation to construct a system with timing requirements, stop start, and so on. Simply repeating only the good moves on doesn’t address the issues that would be In countered.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Possibility of errors where what occurs destroys something required for life to continue as is, even without improving. A death of a thousand errors would occur long before one random mutation works in unison with a previous random mutation to construct a system with timing requirements, stop start, and so on. Simply repeating only the good moves on doesn’t address the issues that would be In countered.

There is a process which allows beneficial mutations to accumulate, while harmful ones gradually disappear from the population.

That process is called "natural selection."

Originally posted by @dj2becker
As expected nothing that can be reproduced in a lab.

What would you expect to see ‘reproduced in a lab’?

That’s a substantial wiki page I linked, and yet you seemed to have read it and disseminated the content in 50mins?!