/lit/ - Literature

Yeah Im thinking based

I know this is bait, but this low IQ definition of "proof" that requires one to see something happen in real time with their own eyes is such a spook.

>2020
>pretending to be retarded

>>14821276
There is evidence. Homologous organs.

>>14821305
Based on your diagram, the theory of evolution is at the scintilla stage at best. Reasonable suspicition specifically states that it should not be based on a hunch or guess.

>>14821276
Unironically go take a lower division class in physical anthropology.

>>14821310
because they have similar functions

>>14821364
I would say the evidence is at preponderance level. We have a preponderance of evidence documenting how gene selection works in real time as a response to environmental change. We've even documented speciation as a direct effect of gene selection divergence in the short time we've been observing. I don't understand how evolution deniers can look at what horrors we have created breeding dogs from a handful of starting points in a very short time and not entertain the idea of drastic changes in form over millions of years. Your average denier cannot even conceive a length of time as small as 10,000 years.

>>14821276
well pack it up guys, literature is FINISHED
we had a good run

>>14821276
>the science book provides absolutely no evidence or proof
And this bullshit, boys and girls, is why in the year 2020 we still have stupid worthless brainwashed fucking drooling teenagers claiming evolution is "just a theory." Because they have never looked at anything resembling an actual science text, couldn't make sense of the physical evidence if you smashed it over their thick heads, and are terrified of having their comforting fairy tales taken away. It's beyond pathetic. "No evidence or proof." Go back to church and fuck off, please.

how come monky?

>>14821276
There is a ludicrous amount of evidence, denying so doesn't make it vanish.

>>14821305
a common trait of the low IQ is an inability to understand cause and effect when it is either obscured form view or indirect.

>Americans

>>14821448
>breeding dogs
That's not a species becoming another species. Try again.

>>14821999
you are extremely retarded

>>14821925
Anon, you can write anything in a book. A science book from a hundred years ago will have many, many factual errors and provable falsehoods. You have no way of knowing the books we have today will not be proven false in another hundred years, in fact, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests they will be.

>>14822007
No one denies that a species can adapt and have small variations (Within the genetic code it already has). You can't provide me a single instance of a mutation creating new information, or a species becoming another species. Checkmate atheists.

>>14821283
>>14821364
>>14821999
>>14822017
Proper bait

>>14821925
Well... post it

>>14821305
>>14821411
>>14821448
>>14821925
>>14822007
Ok so assuming you have read these great science books(and aren't just accepting by faith that the book is right without reading it) where is the evidence? Surely if you understand it well you would be able to say it...

>>14821925
You believe that bigfoot is real and that a fish can turn into a dog but you don't believe in fairy tales?

>>14821276
Atheists believe that Planet of the Apes actually happened. Are they just fucking retarded?

>>14822086
Bigfoot is real tho

>>14822037
I think we've managed to create basic protein structures just from boiling stuff a long time or something. Not sure how far these experiments went.

>>14822070
You can search for fly experiments we can see mutations in real time because of their fast life cycle.
Also viruses mutating (ahem Corona)

>>14822114
Scientists have not created self replicating molecules in a lab, with all the advanced knowledge and technology we have. But we're supposed to believe it happened randomly by the right atoms bumping into each other at the same time. This is peak mental illness.

>>14822118
>a fruit fly "evolves" into a fruit fly
>corona virus "evolves" into corona virus
That's not evolution you dumbfuck. No creationist denies genetic adaptation.

>>14822137
Many adaptations over time can lead to a new species

>>14822118
Now show me the virus evolving into a fly

>>14822132
Alright,don't believe it. Propose a better theory. Science has 1 criterion: there must be an experiment that can prove or disprove it.

>>14822149
Ok, where's the evidence for that then? Oh right, you have none. Nice fairy tales, bigfoot.

>>14822158
No one can "show" you this, retard. It would take billions of years.

>>14822172
If it's not reproducible, then you can't test the hypothesis and it's not science.

>>14822163
Gargle cum, loser

Evolution doesn't explain why I can grow very long hair from my chin and scalp but my shoulders are bald and my chest hair has a cut-off at how long it can grow.
Monkeys that are hairy all over, have this cut-off all over.
The proof is in the pudding.
Checkmate evolutionists.

>>14822172
Do I have to wait billions of years for you to produce a shred of evidence that evolution exists?

>>14822217
You and others like you won't listen to anything anyone says, so I'm not gonna bother anymore. Eat shit and die, see you in hell

>>14822227
I'm listening. Where is the evidence?

>>14821276
Jesus Christ y’all are fucking retards. Evolution can’t explain anything because just like every other scientific theory, once you get down to the nitty gritty it depends on physical laws that we can interact with but can never understand fully how they work and why they work.

>>14822227
I would like to see this evidence too

>>14822239
Dont worry I'm sure he has gone to look for it and hasn't just left without providing it making a valid argument....right?

>>14822347
Yeah, he'll be back, in a few billion years. As a pink elephant of course.

evolution is creatio continua

>I know OP is hard baiting but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

Robert Sapolsky on the Stanford youtube channel has an unironically fantastic course on Human Behavioral Biology that touches upon many different disciplines and covers some disparate fields' evolutionary takes. Also every time some turbochristian who is obsessed with disproving evolution by going to the Galapagos ends up furthering its proof. There was a specific case with a bird from a neighboring island that ended up on one and out-competed with other males for food and mating to end up essentially starting a new species. Hell, even Gregor Mendel's developments in selective selection should be more than enough for someone with a scientific backing to work from there.

That being said, in paleoanthropology in particular, there is a lot of discourse surrounding the 'species' map of humans and our hominid ancestors. We have very little evidence to support a lot of what we claim, but for the most part it is very scientifically informed through the archaeological evidence that we do have. The only thing we can do is find more evidence to support or disapprove certain lineage chains and specie markers. Lots of very big developments only really occurred in the 70's with guys like Tim White, Don Johnson, and the Leakey family. Even in the last decade some astounding new discoveries occurred, but there is a lot of debate surrounding the taxonomy.

Hope this helps some of y'all who are legitimately curious about evolution, paleoanthro, or any related subjects to it.