/lit/ - Literature

Fuck is darwinism

Platypus.

Research it.

Go ask /sci/.

did you skip biology class

>>4612332
nah, he convinces plebs. ok maybe this popularisation is necessary for the masses. but i need real arguments.

>>4612336
we only had basic mendel genetics. darwinism was just mentioned as plausible theory. but i dont remember any evidence.

>>4612341
where are you from

>>4612350
western europe

No fossilized bunnies from the Cambrian

>>4612320

There are bacterias that have evolved to eat nylon.

>>4612353
are you afraid I'll track you down if you give a country

>>4612337
His field of study is evolution. You plebs want to dismiss him on his atheism because he isn't a philosopher, fine, but his specialty is here, and presents the damned evidence you/OP is looking for

>Plausible theory
It was once a theory, now it's so far gone into fact that you'd need tons of things to disprove it. Your class was inadequate.

>>4612354
so what? there's no need to deny this fact if i want to question random natural selection. and i dont need to become an extreme lamarckian either. i recently read that epigenetics offers new teleological interpretation of evolution.
what evidence lead to such a big victory of darwinism in science in the first place?

>>4612358
i think dawkins is more useful for neoliberal ideology than for biology.

>>4612357
anonymity prevents ad hominem. its pretty comfortable this way.

Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
it depends on what you mean by darwinism but Dawkins writes pretty well on science

>>4612378
thx for the tip bro

>>4612350
probably from some catholic shithole

It's hilariously under-evidenced. Tbh modern evolutionists aren't even Darwinists.

Also, I wouldn't ask for evidence for Darwinism anymore. Darwinists have consistently fabricated hoaxes in order to prove their theory; they lost what integrity they had a long time ago.

>>4612320
Your own existence.

>>4612371
>i recently read that epigenetics offers new teleological interpretation of evolution.

If you want a teleological interpretation of things you can go back to Aristotle. The Darwinists attempt to remove teleology from the Universe is no different from the ancient Greek philosophers like Epicurus' attempt to remove teleology from the Universe.
You can interpret the phenomena as pointing to a Designer and you can interpret the phenomena as being the result of a mixture of blind time and chance. It's just that the inference of a Designer is much more natural inference to make.

>'When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? Our friend Posidonius as you know has recently made a globe which in its revolution shows the movements of the sun and stars and planets, by day and night, just as they appear in the sky. Now if someone were to take this globe and show it to the people of Britain or Scythia would a single one of those barbarians fail to see that it was the product of a conscious intelligence?'

-Cicero

>>4612354
And now this thread reached creationist tier retardation.

>>4612450
I don't know how anybody can argue against Creationism.

Creation = make something ex nihilo.

The Universe was not.
The Universe was.
i.e. The Universe was created/made ex nihilo, i.e. creation happened.

The only alternative is that matter / the Universe is eternal, but all the evidence is contrary to that.

>>4612460
>the universe
>ex nihilo

Nope.

contragredient

>>4612320

1. Darwinism is a buzzword used by nutjobs to discredit the theory of evolution.

2. Social darwinism is bullshit that has nothing to do with evolution or genetics.

3. Evidence for evolution is huge. Fossil records, hox genes, skeletons of MANY species of protohumans. Human agriculture is pretty much the evolution of barely-edible plant species into incredibly-edible-and-tasty plant species over the course of thousands of years, using artificial selection, which is only different from natural selection in that it is deliberately monitored by humans for favored genes, instead of by the entire Earth.

Some people are so isolated in human society/scientifically illiterate that they have difficulty believing we came from animals. But it isn't a matter of belief.

>>4612748
>1. Darwinism is a buzzword

It ends as it begins

>>4612460

Don't play this game. Creation implies intent.

It implies the pre-existence of an incredibly intelligent, complex entity with attributes necessary to make a fucking universe.

The different between cosmologists and creationists is this:

Cosmologists don't think the universe was CREATED, they think it FORMED from a long series of coincidences.

The whole reason we want to understand where the universe came from is because it is incredibly difficult to imagine that all this complexity just popped up ex nihilo. There had to have been a snowballing effect from simple, subatomic events to cosmic events.

The problem with the God hypothesis is it says "We don't know how this complexity arose. We propose an even more complex being than the universe was the source, and that this being is exempt from causal explanation, because he transcends everything."

It's lazy, and it completely ignores the original "how" question. Even if it's right at the end of the day (doubtful) science is interested at arriving at the conclusion through painstaking experimentation, not bronze age philosophy meant to make people content with death and suffering.

>>4612765

It is. Evolution isn't an ideology. It's a whole body of research from the past 150 years where people reached conclusions by actually noticing shit laying around on the Earth. They didn't come to these conclusions to prove a point or to rile up the religious population.

Wagner didn't come up with continental drift to get laughed out of the room by his colleagues. He came up with it to explain various physical phenomena that seemed to suggest it.

Darwin knew what he was saying wouldn't sit right with 90% of the population, who are always certain of what they were taught first, but he published his results to explain his findings. He didn't care about ideology. This is not an "ism."

It's a body of research. There are bits missing. But the bits aren't big enough to discredit what has already been discovered.

We are primates who developed symbolic communication and tool making. The rest, as they say, is history.

This bug's ancestors didn't all look like leaves. The ones that did were eaten less often. They were more likely to survive to reproductive age, and pass on their useful genes. This also means their predators starved, unless they had good enough vision to see through the facade. This implies a mutually beneficial relationship where the predators with better vision pass on their genes, while the bugs with better camouflage pass on theirs.

This isn't a matter of "Oh, God is so wonderful and intelligent. He made this bug look like a leaf so he could hide from his enemies."

Because that would mean God directly is depriving other bug species (also his own creatures) of food. Why would he display such arbitrary preferences.

No, it's a genetic arms race. That's why we have to develop new vaccines constantly, and new antibiotics. Even microscopic creatures evolve to combat the tools we use to combat them.

>>4612358
>It was once a theory, now it's so far gone into fact
Quit regurgitating what can be found in the very first pages of his book; it's still a theory no matter what he says.

Philosophy of Science needs you, and you need it.

>>4612378
>Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature
And what the fuck is this? Before "read the book," I'm not going to read a book about the refusal of something I have no idea what it is.

>>4612748
>Social darwinism is bullshit
How so? I find it pretty self-evident that there's a hierarchy to be outlined in any human social gathering.

>>4612821

You're right. It is a theory.

The word theory means something different in a scientific context than in a colloquial context.

As in "I have a theory, it was bob who pissed all over the bathroom seat in HR"

And evolution still has mountains of evidence compared to creation ex nihilo.

Also, creation and evolution needn't be mutually exclusive anyway. Creation argues with cosmology: As in, how the universe formed.

Evolution is exclusive to the domain of time after planets and solar systems formed. It talks about how life diversifies from simple protein structures. This has nothing to do with "in the beginning" it has to do with what happened after.

>>4612845

There are imposed hierarchies, and cultural dogma. Not inherent, permanent hierarchies that can't be changed. Social darwinism is used to justify people who inherited riches and power over people who... didn't. It's also been used to justify racism in numerous situations.

It's also bullshit because it's a misnomer. It shouldn't be called Darwinism (an Darwinism shouldn't be a label in the first place, since it's a label created for the express purpose of discrediting scientific evidence of evolution). It's less about evolution and genes across all life and more about human society, exclusively. It's talking about economic hierarchies, social hierarchies, cultural hierarchies, and racial hierarchies. It ignores completely the role of natural resources, other species, genes, and natural disasters. It also proposes a superiority/inferiority hierarchy, instead of a lucky/unlucky hierarchy, which is more accurate.

>>4612813

>Wagner
>coming up with continental drift

it's Wegener, you fucking twat.

What the fuck is darwinism

>>4612862
>The word theory means something different in a scientific context than in a colloquial context.
And this is why whoever uses the term "theory" incorrectly has probably no idea what he/she is talking about. I wholly disagree on what you said about contexts; either you are educated and thus informed about the terms you are using or you are spouting what you have read with little to no understanding of the terms involved. I don't have the time to explain how science works to one of every two ignoramuses. You'd probably agree with me on this one.

>And evolution still has mountains of evidence compared to creation ex nihilo.
Both are compatible, tho. I don't see how evolution refutes the cosmological model that the Universe came out of nothing.

>>4612823
I think it refers to the line of thought that nature is wholly intelligible and that our grasp of science is close to understanding intelligibility itself (i.e. the mind in relation to nature). Nagel doesn't reject evolution, but there are some points made about how we don't know enough about the mind to claim it developed by chance, which seems a bit like a "god of the gaps" argument. Calling it skeptical might be charitable, but it's a good treatment of reductionism in general; I don't know why he chose such a polemical title.

>>4612883
I think your understanding of artificial vs. natural hierarchies is all messed up. Those economic, social, and cultural hierarchies are just as naturally-based in the world as anything else.

>Not inherent, permanent hierarchies that can't be changed
No kind of Darwinism deals with this.

>It also proposes a superiority/inferiority hierarchy, instead of a lucky/unlucky hierarchy, which is more accurate.
No difference, really. The person that's "more lucky" would be superior.

>>4612895

>>4612904
>I don't see how evolution refutes the cosmological model that the Universe came out of nothing.

Because EVOLUTION, does not DEAL WITH THAT.

Why is that all the religious fags drag evolution, theory which has nada to do with brith of .. this, this all, this universum where we exist, everytime.
>>4612911
Can you fucking define it for me

>>4612460
Another alternative is that the universe came into existence spontaneously.

Now I'll take "if you can't disprove it, it must be true" out of a theocrat's book and say QED.

>>4612914
>Because EVOLUTION, does not DEAL WITH THAT.
Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Obvious. I was saying that because I've heard from the non-religious camp that it somehow *does* refute Creationism.

>>4612914
Read the book.

>>4612904
>I don't see how evolution refutes the cosmological model that the Universe came out of nothing.

Firstly, evolution does not address how the Universe came to be; it deals with adaptation of species.

Secondly, the Universe didn't "come out of nothing". It came from the Singularity. What was before that? Nonsensical question.

Stop the strawmanning.

>>4612933

Well we don't all think that. At least not all the possible contingencies of a creation myth.

But what we DO think it refutes is the biblical creation myth, in which a human couple were created in their present form, six thousand years ago. It's only the creation myth of biblical literalists that evolution refutes.

No, it does not refute the notion that the big bang was initialized by a complex being, and it does not refute the notion of a cyclical universe either (see asimov's the last question for a good short story about a cyclical universe).

>>4612940

It's not a nonsensical question actually.

There are multiple hypotheses, including the collapse of a previous universe, the existence of multiple universes spawning offshoot universes, and of course creationism.

The question isn't nonsensical because it is essentially the same gripping mystery we started with, even before knowing about red shift, blue shift, and the expansion of the universe.

(not trying to defend biblical literealists/other creationists).

>>4612940
>Firstly, evolution does not address how the Universe came to be; it deals with adaptation of species.
See >>4612933

>Singularity
Not sure I can chew on this humongous non-explanatory buzzword, champ.

>What was before that? Nonsensical question.
As nonsensical as the statement "It came from the Singularity", since "Singularity" refers to nothing in concrete. Capitalizing the word "singularity" sure made it look more scientific and authoritarian.

>>4612908
Aight, thanks.

>>>/sci/

>>4612769
>It implies the pre-existence of an incredibly intelligent, complex entity with attributes necessary to make a fucking universe.

Why do atheists keep saying this?
>incredibly intellignet, complex entity

No, God is not complex, God is simple.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm

>The different between cosmologists and creationists is this

Creationists are a type of cosmologist.

>We don't know how this complexity arose. We propose an even more complex being than the universe was the source, and that this being is exempt from causal explanation, because he transcends everything."

Like I said, God is not complex, he is simple. He is the most simple thing there is. This is why God is necessary. The atom is not self-explanatory, because the atom is too complex. God is more simple than the atom; God is the First Principle. Without this First Principle you cannot arrive at any other principle, like the principle of the atom.
God does not "transcend everything", everything, every being, has its being/existence from God. God "contains" everything, in this sense. So it's not true that God transcends everything. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm
Also, God is not outside "causal explanations", God is necessary for the concept of cause-and-effect to work. Cause-and-effect implies a First Cause, i.e. God.

>>4612433
God damn stop discrediting Aristotle. He was a great thinker for his time (literally for his time), we have learned lots of shit since thanks to Socrates but his methods has been refined now and his flaws has been found.

>>4613017
Discrediting Aristotle? No. Aristotle had a greater understanding of the Universe than most modern philosophers/scientists.

>>4613029
Tongue my anus.

This thread is proof that the word "science" has been hijacked by secularists who try to push their anti-religion propaganda.

>>4613029
>Aristotle had a greater understanding of the Universe than most modern philosophers/scientists.
1/

>>4613029
By our modern standards Aristotle would qualify as mentally retarded.

>>4613029
extreme
>>4613114
other extreme

The truth is in between, of course. You'd know that from actually heeding Aristotle's words.

>>4613150
Why do you post a picture of a pendulum? Is this babby's first mechanics homework?

OH BOY AM I GLAD TO SEE THE NEW JANITORS ARE HARD AT WORK!!!

but seriously, I think this board has outlived its usefulness and should be put on the chopping block. i'm not even sure hwat kind of shitposter its meant to contain anymore

>>4613016
Well that's the question of how does one interpret God. In the Bible he was reported to speak. You need a certain level of complexity for that. The same thing with destroying cities with fire and brimstone.

Either God is simple or intelligent and capable of thinking and planning. Or nonexistent. Or not abiding to the laws of logic.

I'm an agnostic myself. I don't deny nor accept the existence of any deity, because I don't think that if one existed, it would be possible for us to understand it. Something perhaps more basic and abstract than mathematics.

If by Darwinism you just mean evolution by means of natural selection, there's a lot of direct evidence.
The fact that more and more strains of bacteria are becoming completely immune to antibiotics is pretty compelling in itself, I'd say.
Also I guess those finches if you want to kick it old school.

We took wolves and turned them into dogs over a few thousand years of artificial selection. It's pretty naive to think natural selection couldn't have achieved something similar on the scale of billions of years

>>4613161
>i'm not even sure hwat kind of shitposter its meant to contain anymore

Me, and I'm still here; faggot.

>>4613016
>The atom is not self-explanatory, because the atom is too complex
>I don't understand it, therefore GOD

>>4613560
but dogs still all have compatible DNA dont they? 78 chromosomes. not really a demonstration of darwinism, except that you can do fun stuff within a constant variety (breed). but darwinism is about evolving varieties which form new constant varieties under natural selection, which is much less target oriented than a human breeding specialist. a lot of faith in randomness.

>>4612320
>darwinism
>>>/church/
>>>/godisreal/
>>>/goddidit/

The easiest way to spot a moron who absorbs Christian idiocy is one who uses the term "Darwinism"

It's called fucking evolution. We don't have Newtonianism, or Platoism, or Pythagoreanism

>>4612337
>dismissing Dawkins in his only elegant and good field

Yeah, go kill yourself.

>>4612405
Catholics officially believe in evolution

>>4612412
Oh, and God is sufficiently evidenced?

>>4612460
Do you put effort into your retardation or does it come naturally

>>4613648
>which is much less target oriented than a human breeding specialist

I think you're really underestimating environmental selective pressures, and the sheer size of the timescale involved (we're talking millions and millions of generations here). I'm a layman with regards to this topic but I'm sure >>>/sci/ would be happy to explain it, provided you don't come across as zealous.

>>4613661
>Catholics officially believe in evolution

The majority accept evolution, in the sense that they have no interest in fighting against it for the sake of vindicating the Bible and consequently expecting fellow Catholics to burn bridges between themselves and science (something creationists are notorious for).

It's also worth pointing out that the Catholic Church believe in a literal Adam and Eve. But this is largely a matter of faith, and (as far as I'm aware) there haven't been many attempts at shoehorning this into the scientific consensus on human origins.

>>4613029

>>4613835
> the Catholic Church believe in a literal Adam and Eve

Eh, not entirely.

>

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

>>4612845
A problem concerning Social Darwinism is the naturalistic fallacy. It argues evolution implies have we ought to live when obviously that logic is flawed. to add, evolution can be defined as descent with modification and adaption to environment while social Darwinism is obviously not that. It is a huge misunderstanding and a hijacking of ideas by people who connected Darwin's ideas to inappropriate things such as race and economic status.

>>4612320
1.Inheritance of traits. Do you resemble your mom?
2.Superfecundity. You've fapped about three USAs worth of sperm cells in the last 24 hours.
3. Mutation. You are not identical to your parents.

The only way to escape from the conclusion of playing those three phenomena backwards and getting speciation over geologic time scales is to invent magical history, or blame it on God. How can you believe in Chiuauas and Great Danes, but not mutating DNA?

>>4613858

No, he is correct.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

>>4613950
It's been almost seven decades since Pius XII's death, things have changed a bit.

>>4613957

Well, I'm not sure what Catholics are compelled to believe on this matter. Humani Generis is not dogma. That does not mean it should be cast aside, however, not at all. But as you pointed out with the Catechism, the essential part is that there was a primeval event that led to original sin. I suppose it could be easily left as a mystery like so many other things, but I do think that for original sin and thus the entirety of Christianity to have any meaning we must all descend from two individuals, surely. The only way I can make sense of it in light of evolution is that at some point God gave man as he came to a certain point of evolution a soul, then there was the fall, and then we all descend from those souled beings.

>>4612420
>[citation needed]

The entire purpose of science is to find empirical truth, a scientist who develops a personal attachment to a particular theory is a fucking moron and wouldn't be intelligent enough to be a scientist in the first place.

>>4613931
>children dont look exactly like parents
>mutation
are you trolling or something?

>>4612884
Woah...Who took the jam out of your doughnut?

>>4614006
ur le dumb

>>4614079
recombination != mutation

>>4612320
I am alive.

>>4613931
Why do males inhere stuff from their mothers while females from their fathers?

>>4612371
>anonymity prevents ad hominem
No it doesn't, faggot

>>4612358
>It was once a theory, now it's so far gone into fact

you're making it so obvious you don't even science. theory means something different when you're talking about science. i know this from high school biology.

>>4612320
I C WUT YEW DUN THAR OOP

Western oligarchy, called capitalism.

>>4612320


niggers.

>ctrl+f
>flow
>0 results
His studies on flowers OP.

>>4613890
Okay, so the "Darwinism" label may be a bit misleading. But disregarding word choice, what the theory itself asserts—do you see anything wrong with that?

White supremacy

>>4614506
From my understanding of what Social Darwinism is I would call it a bullshit idea. Their is no innate difference between any ethnicity on the genetic level that allows for a hierarchy of any sorts. evolution has helped influence social Darwinism and in a time when genes were not known people thought skin color and such had a basis on a person's overall "fitness". Today we know that people's skin color and appearance or ancestry is not an indicator of anything because no ethnicity has any specific genes that are advantageous in terms of intelligence or capability. If you want to argue that certain races are higher on a hierarchical scale because of history and colonization you could make that claim but that has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. That actually sound what social justice warriors are complaining about.

>>4612320
I'm gonna replace the word Darwinism with evolution. Here is evidence for evolution:
The Fossil Record
Bio-geography
Developmental, anatomical and biochemical similarities found in organisms
artificial selection
vestigial structures
molecular evidence
observation of bacteria changing in real-time.

>>4612821
To put it more accurately, evolution is a fact, natural selection is a process, and the theory is the process explains the fact.

>scientists still haven't found a single transition fossil
>people still blindly believe this crap

>>4614396
I know what a theory is. And the theory that evolution once was has grown so much, without a thing challenging it, it can be safely claimed pretty damn true. The exact details of every little mechanism isn't worked out, but that hardly leaves any fucking room to disprove it.

Hell, even the Catholic church acknowledges it, doesn't it?

Dumbshit/troll rating 2/10 for making me respond.

>>4612433
>>4612769
This book explains teleology from physical rules.

>>4612433
>>4612769
Also, in science you can't use metaphor by taking an idea that fits into a network of connected ideas, remove it, and then use it in isolation elsewhere.

Applying the mind metaphor to creation would require explaining how the creator mind can create the universe when ours can't, and how it developed, as ours do, and why then explain why the metaphor is still valid after changing it into something that works completely different from our minds.

>>4613161
Then don't read the thread, I think this is an interesting discussion

>>4614755
> Their is no innate difference between any ethnicity on the genetic level that allows for a hierarchy of any sorts
Alleles exist.

>In 2010, for the first time, the genes responsible for the unique adaptive traits were identified following genome sequences of 50 Tibetans and 40 Han Chinese from Beijing. Initially, the strongest signal of natural selection detected was a transcription factor involved in response to hypoxia, called endothelial Per-Arnt-Sim (PAS) domain protein 1 (EPAS1). It was found that one single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) at EPAS1 shows a 78% frequency difference between Tibetan and mainland Chinese samples, representing the fastest genetic change observed in any human gene to date. Hence, Tibetan adaptation to high altitude becomes the fastest process of phenotypically observable evolution in humans,[49] which is estimated to occur in less than 3,000 years ago, when the Tibetans split up from the mainland Chinese population.[6] Mutations in EPAS1, at higher frequency in Tibetans than their Han neighbours, correlate with decreased haemoglobin concentrations among the Tibetans, which is the hallmark of their adaptation to hypoxia. Simultaneously, two genes, egl nine homolog 1 (EGLN1) (which inhibits haemoglobin production under high oxygen concentration) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARA), were also identified to be positively selected in relation to decreased haemoglobin nature in the Tibetans.[50]

Tibetans are better at breathing in altitude than mainland Chinese people.
Here's your hierarchy.

>>4616942
I like how when you quote me you miss an essential part of the quote. I argued there are no alleles found in any groups that make them marginally advantageous compared to others in terms of intelligence or overall capability. Secondly, Tibetans being better at breathing in higher altitude does not create a hierarchy. You are assuming adaptions to certain climates or altitudes makes a person more advantageous than others but that it is relative. People in the mainland probably have alleles better suited for where they live. Evolution isn't some goal to perfection its about populations adapting to their environment through multiple processes. The only hierarchy in evolution is when you compare an individuals overall "fitness" and compare it to another individual's. No race in humans has a significant fitness that is higher or lower than any other. Many races have certain alleles that make them capable of avoiding certain diseases or living in certain environments easier but no race has a overall better fitness. This was my main point. You can create a hierarchy from alleles like those found in Tibetans but it would only work in relative terms. Any hierarchy of allele frequencies seems arbitrary.

>>4616981

Ignore him. Racists will look for any articulate reason to be racist. They want an excuse to hate, or to dismiss the existence of others, and they will go to any lengths to disguise it with a scholarly attitude as their contemptible opinions become less and less widely accepted.

>>4613835
Are you aware that a Catholic priest first proposed the Big Bang theory?

>>4613016
>No, God is not complex, God is simple.

Yes. He's simple. Yet at the same time complex enough to be capable of looking into the hearts of every living creature ever, and creating/destroying universes.

God's whatever you want him to be to suit an argument. God's not creating you, you're creating him, with every new argument.

>>4613016
>bullshit

god is not exempt from first cause. the "he's outside time" argument is bullshit. god tells abraham to kill his son, abraham does so, god stops him. there is obviously a progression of causally linked thoughts and decisions going on with god, even if it isn't a temporal one

either god's thoughts and actions chain infinitely (and if god can be causally infinite we don't need a first cause) or he has a thought with no antecedent thoughts and thus began to exist and thus needs his own cause

>tfw arguing about god

>>4612320
1. DNA passes down genetic information
2.Chromosomal crossover, independent assortment, and mutation cause genetic variation
3.genetic variation causes variation in traits
4.organisms that survive and reproduce propagate their traits
These are all facts, evolution is a fact, "Darwinism" was the first expression of the idea of evolution.

>>4616981
>I argued there are no alleles found in any groups that make them marginally advantageous compared to others in terms of intelligence or overall capability
You didn't even use the word "alleles", so no you didn't argue for that.

>Secondly, Tibetans being better at breathing in higher altitude does not create a hierarchy.
Better at breathing in higher altitude > average at breathing in higher altitude > worse at breathing in higher altitude.
That's a hierarchy.

>but that it is relative.
Hierarchies, like all things, are relative.

>Evolution isn't some goal to perfection its about populations adapting to their environment through multiple processes.
What about the perfect adaptation to your environment?
That's perfection in a sense.
The capacity to shape your environment like the Europeans have been doing since the Agricultural and even more after the Industrial revolution, isn't that a game-changer?

>The only hierarchy in evolution is when you compare an individuals overall "fitness" and compare it to another individual's.
You can have a hierarchy on all variables affected by evolution.

>No race in humans has a significant fitness that is higher or lower than any other.
Source?
I'm pretty sure that the North Amerindians had a lesser fitness than the European settlers for example.

> but no race has a overall better fitness.
For a given environment? They all do.
Guess who's spreading their environment to the rest of the world? Which culture is becoming global? Protip: it's not the Maori's or the Pygmy's.

>Any hierarchy of allele frequencies seems arbitrary.
All form of knowledge is arbitrary ((:

>>4616991
I don't understand your post m8.
Do you disagree that the Tibetans are on average better at breathing in high altitude than mainland Chinese people?
If you don't disagree, what's your issue with that post?
Also can you point out hate in that wikipedia article?
Do you find sport competition hateful too?
There's winners and losers, a hierarchy. Oh no!

>>4612332
>taking Dawkins seriously
>being this stupid
I hope you're either 16 or retarded.

>>4617060
1. wrong
2. wrong
3. correct if you misconstrue the word "cause"
4. correct

gbt bio101 m8

>>4617927
>what direct evidence exists for darwinism?

>Wont accept an evolutionary biologist in his own field. Wont acknowledge any of his numerous awards
>Wont use proper capitalization, just like the OP.

You had better be one edgy yet articulate 12 year old, because there's no excuses for this blind stupidity in an older lad.