Summations Only

Dr Adequate,Do you know the meaning of "intelligence" in science? Can you show by simple experiment about "intelligence"?ORPlease, define intelligence in scientific way?Is instinct intelligence??

Yeah, I knew that there are changes BUT those changes cannot produce new species! Is that hard to understand? I knew that population is composed of individuals. I knew that population changes but they don't change to become new species.Yes, gene mutates. But let me get straight: If gen1 has the following traits, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, t8, t9, t10..., then, the gen2 may get the same traits in a mixed order: t10, t2, t6, t4, t5, t1, t7, t8, t9, t3,...and the third generation, gen3, may get another mixed traits...but the gene cannot mutate traits that are NOT present in gen1!But why do we see changes? We see changes because genes are being mixed up. Say, t1 is a genius trait, t1 can be present in gen1, but it will never be present in gen2, but it doesn't mean that gen2 has no t1 trait! It is very simple! To quickly jump to another species is a fantasy!You see, ToE is messing up science. You messes science! I think you should be reading and using a critical thinking. Don't just say, "Amen, Darwin, you are right!"

To: Dr Adequate I knew that. That is why I had given you example so that you will know where you will be using that word "trait" because ToE loves to make explanation without any realistic application.Let us go back to our example:If generation1 (gen1) had the following traits as a whole (take note: as a whole)t1, t2, t3, t4, t5...., t100, (from t1 until t100)then gen1 will reproduce the same traits to gen2, but since there is no "perfect clone", then, the traits will be mixed up in arrangement, like thist3, t50, 67, 80, ....t1...(the same complete genes/traits with gen1).That is how we see "changes" that was incorrectly labeled by ToE as "evolution" to the point of making new species.The problem is: when gen1 reproduces gen2, will t200 or t500, new traits, will be formed? No! Since how could genes mutates if that t200 or t500 is not present in gen1?You see, ToE is messing up science and making fantasy.Am I rght?Edited by intellen, : No reason given.Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

OK, let us use your scenario.Yes, that is a change! From this combination: t1, t2 to this combination, t2, t1...that is exactly a change.If gen1 has t1, and t2, then, gen2 will also must have t1, and t2, too. But since there is no perfect clone, then, t2, t1 is a possibility since we have only two traits. And that is not evolution. That is only a change. In my own discovery, I called it "interrelation."So, where is evolution and where is mutation? Do you imply that t3 will be formed? That is a fantasy! OK, I'll play. BUT you need to be sure that you know the meaning of "inheritable traits" because this will be the biggest blow to ToE.How can you show that t3 will be formed by mutation or evolution?

The change that occurred is the arrangement of its location. That is definitely a change. (Remember that there are only 2 traits in our example). That what we see in the real world in all living organisms, from gen1 to gen2. So, you are implying that t3 is arising even though it is not present in gen1? Am I right? So, meaning, the "inheritable traits, say t1, t2 of gen1 to gen2 is wrong?How can you explain that when ToE claimed that inheritable traits is part of evolution?Maybe you can enlighten me up since until now ToE and you is messing science.