Well, let's just take this silly analogy to its illogical conclusion. In the evolutionary model, your cloud will continue to evolve into...what?
Into nothing, since the cloud/snow example was not brought in as an example of an "evolutionary model". It was brought in as a counterexample to your (false) claim that there's some sort of "natural law" which requires all things to "go from order to disorder". Not only is there no such law, but ordinary natural processes manage to "go from disorder to order" all the time, contrary to your misunderstandings about nature, laws, and science. He gave you one example in order to point out how trivially wrong you were.
Here in the real world the storm weakens into nothing.
Irrelevant to the point being made. You're still wrong when you presume that "natural laws" force everything to "go from order to disorder". They don't. Under the right conditions, nature easily makes things go from disorder to order.
Tell you what. Go stack some wooden matchsticks into an intelligent, complex design. A building for example. Then take a swing at it with a baseball bat and see if the matchsticks fall into a more complex organization.
Rigorously define "more complex organization". Be precise and show your work. We'll wait. (Hint: The concepts you're flinging around aren't nearly as simplistic as you presume them to be.)
If it doesn't happen the first time, I'm sure it's just a matter of time and chance. Keep at it, and let us know when your matchsticks form the Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building, or a retractable-roof stadium by "chance".
Congratulations, that's one of the worst analogies for evolution I've ever seen. Evolutionary processes require three things in order to work: 1) reproduction, 2) variation, 3) selection.
Your "example" fails to incorporate two of the three necessary processes. Thus, its results won't in any way be a valid analogue to the results that an evolutionary process would achieve. Nice try.
And contrary to all the claims by all the anti-evolutionists, evolutionary processes *ACTUALLY DO WORK* when applied in practical applications, such as problem-solving genetic algorithms, or molecular evolution harnessed to derive novel pharmaceuticals, and much more. Evolution *does* produce "order out of chaos" when it occurs. Deal with it.
And please try to learn something about a field of science before you attempt to critique it.
Well, trying to prove the concepts of evolution with a non-evolutionary model isn't very effective. LOL
Rigorously define "more complex organization".
I did. See the brief list of examples.
Evolutionary processes require three things in order to work: 1) reproduction, 2) variation, 3) selection.
Great! So why don't we see evolution at work with those 3 things? Where are all the transisitional freaks and mutants? We just can't seem to find any living examples, or any in the fossil record. God must be hiding the evidence to test our faith, right? ROFL
Do you REALLY believe that fish can transform into an amphibian or a dinosaur into a bird or an ape into a man? Let's take a brief look at ONE example. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change, say a dinosaur, into a bird? Well, WINGS would be the most obvious. The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. (Ok, I'm trying not laugh here, but it is NOT easy!) But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles. And of course wings are made of feather, which are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. (Ok, I'm flat out laughing now) Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight (Can't you just picture a big dino running and trying to fly and looking back disdainfully at his heavy tail? LOL). And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors. Ah, let's see...Oh yes, birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style. Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals. The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Now if you want to believe in such leaps of faith, go right ahead, but YOU are the one off the scientific reservation, not I.
You may want to read up on Dr. Michael Denton. He's an agnostic but a decided non-evolutionist who compiled a chart on "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record" in his book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by comparing the number of living types to fossil types, gleaning information from Romer's classic book, Vertebrate Paleontology. He found that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils. Approximately 95% are marine invertebrates, with the rest being mostly plants, fish, and insects. When we look at the invertebrates, we see separate and distinct categories (i.e., clams, corals, trilobites, etc.) existing in the earliest strata with NOT A HINT of ancestors or of intermediates. We find clams by the trillions, with a lot of variety among them, but no evolution. Furthermore, we have no idea how vertebrate fish could have arisen from any invertebrate. Where there are good data, we see no evolution. The fossil record is voluminous and apparently substantially complete. Yet no evolution is seen. Again, is this God testing our faith in evolution?
If you remember nothing else, never forget that Mutations never add information to the DNA code, as would be necessary for major evolutionary advancement. End of sentence. End of evolution.