COMMENT [778]

HA evolution says that the animals and life evolved to be better life-forms and to not need to abide by the older and obsolete parameters of life (in a nut-shell), but why does food exist? and why do most life have the consistent and unchanging ability to reproduce?; the answer is that these things exist so that life can live. Life was “meant” to last, this is why there is reproduction, this is why there is food, this is why these things exist on earth, they are meant to last, it is pretty obvious.

9 thoughts on “COMMENT [778]

  1. “HA evolution says that the animals and life evolved to be better life-forms and to not need to abide by the older and obsolete parameters of life”
    Evolution has nothing to do with ones hunger. Evolution of a species doesn’t mean it suddenly stops needing to eat. It’s just the changes to take on the stronger more dominant genes which benefit the animal/human species itself. Not eating will not change the inherent need to eat. Every living thing needs to eat for that very reason.
    As far as reproduction, how do you think evolution happens. Not every individual creature is interested in procreation, but a species evolves over millennia (not in five minutes), which involves procreating and expanding the species so that those traits become more dominant and the weaker genetic makeup is bred out.
    “older and more obsolete parameters of life”
    Does this mean having air conditioning, the ability to microwave stuff, not having to hunt for our food with spears? What exactly does this mean?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. But that’s the thing, evolution often says that alot of different life-forms conveniently “evolved” to deal with or move-on from certain dependancies, this is literally the playbook of evolution, i.e, something always literally “evolves” conveniently so that eventually it is at a stage where it no longer needs certain things. So i just found it funny that after “billions of years” of “evolution”, no animal has conveniently evolved to not need food. Again all of us in real life knows that all life needs to eat so that it can remain living as itself, that is in reality, but I was not making an example out of reality, i was making an example out of “evoltion” and how much of a farsical tale it is 🀭🀣🀣🀣

      In reality, there is no such thing as “the stronger genetics replacing the weaker genetics” since all throughout the animal kingdom, there is a high mixture of both weaker and stronger animals, so this evolutionary myth is debunked on a daily basis in reality hahaha

      Like

      1. In every species there are a mixture, yes. But that is the norm.

        For example, those in Africa evolved to have darker melanin than those in Scandanavia because the sun is stronger in Africa and there is more winter in Scandanavia. The darker skin protects from sun damage better than paleness, and the paleness is due to the snow and evolving to make one harder to see for predators. Every race evolved to have the characteristics they have based on the location that they were in, which is why they are all different from each other, but similar in their individual regions. The strong genes are the ones that best assist the animal with survival, not individual weaker or stronger animals, but as a whole. Humans also evolved to have a larger cranium to have a larger brain. Humans also evolved to walk upright as that was the genetic makeup that allowed them to evade predators. Humans can run, they can climb tress (toes) and they have the brain power to fight back. It’s evolution.

        Like

        1. Yes it’s clear that africans have darker skin than the people in other places but i am not so sure that’s an “evolution” at play lol. it’s like me saying if a white person goes and stays in africa long enough, they will eventually evolve into a black person and we all know that this is not realistic; no amount of time a white person spends in the hot sun of africa is going to make them evolve into a black man or a black woman. and if it was just about evolving to suit the environment, then why does the different races also have different facial characteristics and different languages?, how does any of that help them survive any better in an environment?. So this issue racial traits goes beyond just a matter of environmental evolution lol

          Like

          1. A person does not evolve like that. It takes MILLIONS of years for these traits to become dominant. Me going to Africa and standing in the sun for 30 minutes will not change my race. Not even a little bit. MILLIONS of years are needed.

            And facial characteristics, when generalized, is also due to evolution. There are reasons that certain characteristic are in one group but not another. However, as you are describing it, your talking about a child lookin like it’s parents. That’s not evolution, that’s procreation. Evolution, again, doesn’t happen in one generation or even 12. It takes millions of years. Languages would have developed as humanoids gained the ability for speech. All humanoids did not live in the same area at the same time through all of evolution, that’s the out of africa concept. But the ability for speech evolved over time with the increase in the cranium size permitting larger brains. Speech traits would have them been created based on the location where they are and not influenced by other groups evolving at the same time. In this way, languages sound completely different as they were created and evolved over time as the humanoids evolved in their particular location.

            For example, look at English. It’s one language, yet there’s “American English”, “The King’s Engish”, “Cockney”, “Australian English”, and even several forms of Creol English. These become the primary versions of the languages based on the cultures they are born in and evolve in. With care, all of the english speakers can understand each other, but at first it can sound like a completely new language, but it’s not. It’s the evolution of a language.

            Just as two completely different languages can be blended together to make a new language so that two groups can understand each other, thus making a new language. Such as Pigin, or Yiddish. Humans have the brain capacity to understand the differences, due to evolution over the course of MILLIONS of year.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. quantity doesn’t neccessarily equal quality πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ€­; there is no proof that anything takes millions of years to evolve because evolutuion has failed to provide biological-links that anything directly evolved from, that it claimed has evolved.

              And if it takes millions of years for these racial and ethnic changes to take effect on humans, then how come many humans have “evolved” into different races already, when humans have only existed for thousands of years — not any where close to “millions of years”, yet at the same time humans “evolved” to have darker skin in africa “because of the sun” and some humans “evolved” to have white skin in Scandinavia because “because of the winter/cold”?, how do we explain this evolutionary contradiction? 🀣

              i was not talking about child looking like parents, where did you come up with that? 🀣🀣🀣. I actually said:

              “and if it was just about evolving to suit the environment, then why does the different races also have different facial characteristics and different languages?”

              I specifically sai “races” not the inheritance of family traits lol

              Babe, according to evolution and science as a whole, humans have not been around for millions of years hahaha. They say that about animals not humans 🀭🀭

              Love your take about the origins of the defferent languages πŸ’―πŸ‘πŸ˜‚

              Like

              1. I refered to them as “humanoid” for a reason. The definition of which is bipedal locomotion with 2 arms.

                AS far as the 6,000 years statement… that is not an argument against evolution on the grounds that you don’t believe in evution, but rather a statement that says “Evolution can’t happen because that’s not creationism”. If that’s the conversation, then there is no conversation because these two things are diametrically opposed as far as timelines go. Everything else is details. But if you truly expect me to be able to show that humans were supposed to have evolved from apes in 6,000 years, that is not possible to show because it’s not what happened.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. you did not say humanoid in that comment, neither did you say bipedal; you are definitely speaking like an evolutionist — can’t get the story straight πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜

                  These were you exact words in direct response to that comment i made:

                  “It takes MILLIONS of years for these traits to become dominant. Me going to Africa and standing in the sun for 30 minutes will not change my race. Not even a little bit. MILLIONS of years are needed.”
                  —————-
                  these ethnic traits of the different races did not exist in ape humanoid animals. The different ethnic traits and races as we know them to day, only appeared around the same time modern humans existed, so how did all of these different modern races that we know of today, just suddenly showed up around the time that we became dominant when we have not been here, as we know it. anywhere close to a million years not to mention “MILLIONS” with an “s”? πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

                  Like

                  1. “you did not say humanoid in that comment” I most certainly did: “It takes millions of years. Languages would have developed as humanoids gained the ability for speech. All humanoids did not live in the same area at the same time through all of evolution, that’s the out of africa concept. But the ability for speech evolved over time with the increase in the cranium size permitting larger brains. Speech traits would have them been created based on the location where they are and not influenced by other groups evolving at the same time. In this way, languages sound completely different as they were created and evolved over time as the humanoids evolved in their particular location.” You need to focus. My story hasn’t changed an iota since we started discussing such things a while ago.

                    And yes, I did say that statement about the sun and needing millions of years. my point still stands and I step away from it not one bit. Why do you make ti sound like I’m trying to change my point when I haven’t even tried to change my own words? I have no issue copying and pasting all of my comments back in here. Fact is fact.

                    This time it’s not the evolutionist that’s changing their story. It’s the creationist.

                    “ust suddenly showed up around the time that we became dominant whhen we have not been here, as we know it. anywhere close to a million years not to mention β€œMILLIONS” with an β€œs”?” they didn’t pop up from the dust anyway.

                    They didn’t “suddenly” show up. You make it sound like a chimp went to sleep on Monday and by Tuesday he was a human. That’s not hw it works. There are fossilized records that are NOT forged that show these things. Carbon dating (yes that’s a thing) has placed these fossils close to SEVEN MILLION YEARS OLD (yeah, it would count as millions with an S). Look up Lucy, The Dragon Man or Ardi.

                    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close