(December 5, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 10:32 pm)catfish Wrote: What I get from this illustration is that you're claiming evolution is man-made and ordered...
.

Because light is man-made and ordered?

Do you guys realize how dumb you sound?

No, because if they had red text and decided to change it....
.

(December 5, 2012 at 10:59 pm)catfish Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Because light is man-made and ordered?

Do you guys realize how dumb you sound?

No, because if they had red text and decided to change it....
.

You didn't read post #19, did you?

I read it... Care to explain how it changed the OP?
.

Yep, the text, with the help of an "agent" can change from red to blue. So can life, the only problem (for you, not life) is that the agent in question isn't your god.

(December 5, 2012 at 10:32 pm)catfish Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote:
If this picture/text, does not clarify what evolution is then you clearly are either A. Colour blind, B. Incredible stupid and/or retarded or C. Incredible disconnected from reality.

What I get from this illustration is that you're claiming evolution is man-made and ordered...
.

No evolution is more more subtle changes over time with a scattergun approach that changes trait in an organism to help it better survive in an environment. The picture is can metaphor to show the slow change over time, if you don't get that you (I am taking to all religitards) are mentally retarded.

(December 5, 2012 at 10:01 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Light isn't a natural process?

No, it's a natural phenomenon. The process in the example given was man-made.

(December 5, 2012 at 9:54 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: There is no such distinction as "macro" and "micro" evolution as the cretinists would have their sheeplike followers believe.

It is the same thing viewed on different time scales.

Indeed, I find it easier to go straight to this point, too. All species are transitional and the way we separate different species is pretty arbitrary.

Arguing 'micro vs macro' often ends up with the type of deliberate point-missing that we're seeing from John.

(December 6, 2012 at 9:12 am)John V Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 10:01 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Light isn't a natural process?

No, it's a natural phenomenon. The process in the example given was man-made.

The transition of one color to another is a man-made process? Tell me, Calvin's dad, who invented it?



I think this 'for dummies' thing set the bar too high.

(December 6, 2012 at 10:02 am)Ryantology Wrote: The transition of one color to another is a man-made process?

In this case it is. Someone typed that stuff out and set the colors, you know.

Quote:Tell me, Calvin's dad, who invented it?

If you have a point, please make it. The strip mentions sunsets. In thinking about this earlier, I thought first of a rainbow, but that doesn't work, as all colors appear at once - there's no transition over time. I then thought of sunsets. I've never really watched a sunset to see if it fits. There would probably be a number of breakdowns in the analogy, but at least being man-made wouldn't be one of them, as in the case at hand.

---

(December 5, 2012 at 9:54 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: There is no such distinction as "macro" and "micro" evolution as the cretinists would have their sheeplike followers believe.

It is the same thing viewed on different time scales.

You can define it that way. Some creationists go further, adding that macroevolution must involve addition of information, while microevolution is change resulting from loss of information. For example, a particular breed of dog is essentially a wolf with part of the genome extracted.

---

(December 5, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Because light is man-made and ordered?

Becasue that illustration is man-made and ordered, and is claimed to be analogous to evolution.

Quote:Do you guys realize how dumb you sound?

Have you looked in a mirror lately?

Just because you accept evolution doesn't mean you have to defend every argument made in favor of it. This one was lame. Deal with it.

Dogs -are- wolves, in the same way that you are a primate (though the gulf is a little wider in our case)..... The illustration is meant to show that gradual change can lead to pronounced differences. As an example of how "microevolution" leads to "macroevolution" it's very competent. The agent of that change is irrelevant, as the example is meant to show the effect (specifically addressed to those who- for some reason- think that many small changes can't lead to a large differences if viewed from a wider perspective).