/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6974755
That picture is 10/10 b8.

Your post, however, is a low 3. Gotta try harder than that, OP.

>>6974755
can someone explain the picutre?

>>6974767
Yeah. It's saying that because there are millions of human beings, and thousands of chimpanzees, that we should have similar amounts of ardiphethecus, australopithecus, H. habilis, etc.

Needless to say, it pretends that human beings evolved from chimpanzees, and not that we both evolved separately from a common ancestor. It's what makes the picture such great b8.

>>6974755
The 'March of Progress' is technically a misrepresentation of evolution since natural selection does not necessarily drive things to become taller and bigger. In some cases, loss is more advantageous in the environment than growth. For example, viruses.

Also, the primate on the left is part of the genus Dryopithecus, which does not have millions of members because the entire genus is extinct.

Furthermore, the thing about polonium halos is quickly debunked with a 15-second Google search. The paper about the halos was written by a physicist with no expertise in geology, and an actual geologist took the liberty of pointing out everything wrong with his methodology and conclusions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

All this being said, you're probably a troll and I'm just feeding you by spending my time crafting a response.

>>6974761
no bait
real discussion
i'm not the troll type

>>6974767
explain: the missing link = the whole missing chain of missing links
they evolutionists can't explain how or why, they just believe that without evidence because that's the popular dogma among those who don't want to admit that creation is real for fear there is a creator to answer to.

>>6974772
the pic is just a pic... if there WAS such a pic to upload of a REAL past ancestor, i'd have used it... actually maybe i wouldn't cuz then maybe evolution was real. but it's not and therefore there are no pictures to use so i use this mockup

stop strawmanning

>>6974778
>All this being said, you're probably a troll and I'm just feeding you by spending my time crafting a response.
not at all, i'll check out your link

Please stop posting in this thread. Report for rule violation and move on.

>>6974780
At this point, evolution itself is an observable fact. We can prove with a substantial, substantial body of evidence that populations undergo changes in genetics over time. This is incontrovertible to the highest degree.

The theory of evolution, that these changes are driven by the selective pressures of the environment, is extremely well substantiated. If you are even capable of falsifying this theory, you should be collecting your Nobel right about now.

>>6974780
I'm not strawmanning. I'm describing what the fucking picture says, asshat. It literally says "millions of these and millions of those" and shows chimps progressing into humans. Which is not in any way, shape, or form how human evolution happened.

As for the "missing link" jazz, I suppose I should start talkinga bout them, huh?

First off, we're going to talk about Ardipithecus, an early genus of hominids shortly after we diverged from the chimp lineage.

Here is a silly video about the ramidus species, commonly known as "ardi", the name of the best-preserved specimen we have. I hope you're informed by it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-DCcrLIcL4

lets get right down to the nitty gritty of why this is a poor interrogation of modern theory of evolution, not to say that I agree with it completely, but the rough framework is pretty on par.

Now, lets say right now, in 2015, we actually had one of those predecessors walking around.
What would we do with it?
Give it rights? School? Labor? Education?
Can we fuck it?
Can they hurt us? would they hurt us?
Would we let them sleep with our daughters?
Would we be friends with dudes who slept with their daughters?

a bunch of simple, sociological questions, that unanimously conclude, not a scientific truth, but a psychological concept; we don't get along with competition.
Black people, muslims, whites, Asians. You don't have to pick a side to know for a fact that these four 'groups' have within them an extreme level of prejudice that leads to an extraordinary degree of violence and death.

Our species has been evolving, not only physically, but psychologically, for a very long time. Long, as in, 500 thousand years.

In that amount of time, we've killed off, or mated with, or driven into extinction, all of the near-human humanoid competition to a point where we have refined our own species to a very specific level of physical and mental criteria, intellectually, linguistically, and physically (read: sexually).

We don't need empirical evidence for this; the question is absurd based on psychological tenants.

>>6974778
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

i read this and it seems that it was intended specifically to target creation/evolution ONLY and NOT science.

it danced around the facts. did not even cover the fact that granite, when melted down and allowed to harden isn't granite anymore.

see, this is what i'm talking about.
those who hold to evolution are only regurgitating rhetoric and NOT digging into the facts and TRUE science. FFS!

i challenge each of you to actually do some reading and research for your own knowledge, you can still hate the church afterwards, i promise.

>>6974783
which rule you lil shitstain?

>>6974791
The second genus in our evolutionary path from our ape ancestors is Australopithecus.

This included species like afarensis (the famous Lucy, pic related), africanus (our direct ancestor), boisei and robustus (branches that completely died out).

>>6974798

Forgot pic

>>6974796
>i read this and it seems that it was intended specifically to target creation/evolution ONLY and NOT science.

It probably targets creation because that's what the article is about. D'oh!

Anyway, evolution is science so I think it talks about that too.

>it danced around the facts. did not even cover the fact that granite, when melted down and allowed to harden isn't granite anymore.

I don't think it danced around anything. The article has a level of detail that's, in many ways, overkill when it comes to showing why the polonium halo paper is bullshit. Also, where's the relevance to granite rock here?

>those who hold to evolution are only regurgitating rhetoric and NOT digging into the facts and TRUE science. FFS!

Elaborate.

>i challenge each of you to actually do some reading and research for your own knowledge

I don't think you actually read what I sent you, since a paper like that deserves much more of a thoughtful reflection than "lol this paper hates on creation 2 much" and "lol didn't even talk about granite".

>>6974791
>Ardipithecus
“The same joint configuration occurs in the definitely non-bipedal late Miocene hominid Sivapithecus, and the length and curvature of this bone closely resembles those of a chimpanzee or bonobo.”[4]
And in fact, some doubt whether this toe bone is even part of the fossil. It was dated a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the bones, and was found 16km away.[5]

Ardipithecus ramidus
The fossils of ramidus (which lived supposedly 4.4 million years ago[6]) ‘shows a host of characters usually associated with modern apes’.[7] It has a brain size between 300 and 350 cm3, which is about 20% of modern man’s brain. Peter Line said[8] concerning ramidus:

“The authors argue for hominid status mainly based on a more incisiform canine morphology and a more anterior position of the foramen magnum, as they believe ‘Acquisition of these states at Aramis may correlate with bipedality although this remains to be demonstrated.’[9]”
But not everyone is convinced that ramidus is a hominid. Peter Andrews of London’s Natural History Museum, said that the thin enamel on the teeth of ramidus ‘is more of what you’d expect from a fossil chimp’, and the features of an upper arm bone ‘suggests knuckle-walking, chimp-style’.[10]

More fossil scraps have since been found, and evolutionists have claimed ramidus to be transitional based on the dorsal orientation of the toe bones found (technically, the proximal joint surface of a proximal foot phalanx). However, one is referred to the “kadabba” section for the refutation.

Another feature used to support ramidus’ transitional status is its smaller teeth. This is supposed to show reduced male-to-male conflict, increased pair-bonding, and increased parental investment. But this feature is hardly enough to classify ramidus as transitional, since much larger variations than this exist in current species.

>>6974755

The funny thing about creationists is that they never talk about creationism. They will ask an infinite number of questions about evolution, and if every last one of them is not answered they think they have "disproved" evolution.

But creationism doesn't answer a single question about anything. Created by whom? God or aliens or a wizard or something. Who cares! Why do humans and plants share so much of the same DNA? Why not? Why is the best tasting food always bad for you? Because God is a jerk who wants you to suffer. Why do we grow old and die? Read your bible - not that creationism is a religion or anything.

The theory of evolution provides inspiring and useful answers to all the above questions. If you understand it well enough, you will discover that creationism is actually an (unintentional) insult to God.

>>6974801
polonium in granite is the issue

therefore granite is important
maybe you didnt read the OP link

since granite can't form from molten state, HOW did the halos get there? your link dind't address this.

your link doesn't discount the op link... and that's what i'm saying: y'all just grab an article you think is related, throw it at a creationist and think you won. but you didn't exam the full spectrum of both articles. if you did, you'd not have used the one you did.

I would just like to take this small moment to remind you all that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has had no problem with evolution from the day Darwin published his book, and continues to pump cleric scientists out of her seminaries who actively argue against creationism and for chemical evolution, micro evolution and macro evolution.

That is all

Continue on

>>6974802
And Australopithecus?

And Homo Habilis?

And Homo Erectus?

>>6974809
>since granite can't form from molten state, HOW did the halos get there? your link dind't address this.

1/2

"Even if we assume that concentric ring haloes actually are due to alpha radiation damage, an immediate problem arises with the short half-life of the polonium isotopes themselves. In order to leave a visible radiation damage halo, the affected mica or fluorite grains would have to crystallize before the polonium decayed away to background levels - about 10 half lives. For polonium isotopes, this correlates to between a fraction of a second (Po-212, Po-214, Po-215) and 138.4 days (Po-210). Gentry's hypothesis calls for pure, concentrated polonium at the center of each ring. The model makes no distinction between which polonium isotopes should be present - thus, there should be equal likelihood for all. He points out that there is no known geochemical process by which such concentrations can occur during crystallization of a magma, concluding therefore that polonium haloes are indicative of some non-natural or supernatural occurrence.

An alternative possibility is explored by Brawley (1992) and Collins (1997). They note that many concentric ring haloes line up along visible fractures within the host mica. Such fractures are very common in mica crystals. Micro-fractures could provide conduits for the rapid movement and concentration of radon-222, a gaseous daughter product of uranium-238 which forms part way along the decay chain leading to polonium. Radon-222, itself an alpha emitter, has a half life of 3.82 days and is produced continuously in the decay of the parent uranium.

>>6974812
not until you acknowledge that ardi is bunk

>>6974755
>1859 + 155
>evolution debunked gets more than 10 replies

l m a o

pseudoscientists, when will they learn?

>>6974809
2/2

Migration of radon along fractures with hold-up points at tiny structural traps would result in exactly the same concentric ring pattern assigned by Gentry to polonium alone (because polonium is a daughter isotope of radon decay). Assigning a halo diameter to radon is difficult as the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210 ; the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished (Moazed, et al., 1973).

The development of fractures in the grains of mica after crystallization has occurred, and the migration of radon along these fractures over the course of millennia, is much more in keeping with current geologic models of rock formation. Thus, the radon hypothesis is more attractive than Gentry's model since it fits the observed evidence and doesn't require supernatural occurrences."

holy shit, it's almost as if you didn't even read it. 0/10 on reading comprehension.

>>6974815
>the evidence, according to one study, suggests that ardi may or may not be transitional
>proof that ardi is "bunk"

Absolute shit logic m8. Complete and utter shit.

>>6974814
>They note that many concentric ring haloes line up along visible fractures within the host mica
ok see the dancing here...?
talking about finding them near fractures.

what about them being meters deep into a solid piece...

oh shit! we better not confront that, just gloss over it. otherwise evolution will be found out to be a lie.

and knocking gentry for being a physicist?
last i checked that was a rung or two higher on the intellectual ladder than a guy who watches the seismograph

>>6974818
>holy shit, it's almost as if you didn't even read it. 0/10 on reading comprehension.
no. i DID read AND comprehend. the gentry model is based on polonium ONLY being able to create halos, but that the halos are evidenced to be polonium in nature and meters deep into rock that has (as far as anyone can tell) has ALWAYS existed (can not be formed from a molten state. nor compressed from dust in the gravity of planet building

>>6974822
>what about them being meters deep into a solid piece...

Have you ever looked at a piece of mica? The cracks in it are pretty much pervasive.

>last i checked that was a rung or two higher on the intellectual ladder than a guy who watches the seismograph
>seismologists are geologists

yep you're a troll. that or just some dumbass who thinks he can overturn well-substantiated scientific theory by copypasting fringe websites on 4chan. either way, I'm done with this thread. have fun being retarded.

>>6974819
READ the rest, shithead

>>6974830
argh! pout! whine! i quit cuz i can't keep up!
better run away sounding tough before i'm found out!

you can not defend evolutionism with real reason or logic or facts... so run home...
we'll pretend you aren't going with your "tail" between you legs.

>>6974831
Ardi is controversial because she's so similar to modern apes. It means that she could or could not be an ancestor. Period. There's nothing fucking conclusive about it.

So I'll ask again. Disprove the other homo species.

>>6974755
Some things in evolution remain a mystery therefore all of evolution is wrong and creationism is right. Also, there remain some mysteries in physics therefore all physics is wrong and it's only because of the evil, dogmatic sheeple scientists trying to fool people into believing there's no god that the physics religion continues to exist.

>>6974837
creation leave a couple things unanswered too.

but evolution doesn't have a half fin/half leg/half wing to stand on

>>6974836
gimme a sec.

>>6974841
No, creation is absolutely without any flaws you heathen. It's a known fact that god created us. There is absolutely no evidence for evolution at all.

>>6974788
>88
ayy
yyyyyyyyy

>>6974837
based on info from those who BELIEVE in evolution

"Afarensis reconstruction. Disregarding the human-like eyes (which are artistic licence), it looks very ape-like.

So what is it that makes afarensis so special? It is told that afarensis was capable of walking upright (is bipedal). However, the posture of afarensis can be interpreted to be anything from modern human-like to chimpanzee-like.[7] One scientist said (emphasis added):

"Prevailing views of Lucy's posture are almost impossible to reconcile. When one looks at the reconstruction proposed by Lovejoy (1998) and by Weaver et al. (1985), one gets the impression that her fleshed reconstruction would be the body of a perfectly modern human biped. ... But when one looks at the preliminary reconstruction recently shown at the Smithsonian, one gets the impression of a chimpanzee awkwardly attempting to stand on its hindlimbs and about to fall on its frontlimbs (Lewin, 1988). In the latter, the implication is a "primitive" form of bipedality in the Hadar hominids. To resolve such differences, more anatomical (fossil) evidence is needed. The available data at present are open to widely different interpretations."[8]
If the data can be interpreted so differently, how can we be sure that this animal is actually transitional? Why should we believe the common myth that afarensis is a leading 'proof' for evolution, when scientists don't even interpret the data properly?

Even if it is eventually proven that afarensis walked upright, it would not be evidence for human evolution. Even apes living today walk upright from time to time. For afarensis to be evidence of human evolution, one would have to demonstrate that it was habitually bipedal—something which has not been shown for any animal except our own genus, Homo."

>>6974848
lllllmaaaaaaoooooo

>>6974841
So tell me. Why does 99% of the scientific community agree on evolution as scientific fact?

Don't your "theories" being correct necessitate a giant conspiracy within the scientific community? Do you honestly think that's likely?

>>6974850
No one knows therefore it must all be wrong. Praise Jesus!

>>6974755
>>6974788
>>6974800
>>6974811
>>6974822

>>6974853
It's 100% you shouldn't be called a scientist if you outright deny evolution.

>>6974850
That is completely illgoical. It wouldn't have to be habitually bipedal if the first species to be habitually bipedal was habilis. All that would mean is that the transition of bipedal movement happened between Australopithecus and Homo, which is completely reasonable.

This entire post is basically "well it doesn't HAVE to be our ancestor, therefore it isn't."

>>6974853
1. that number is WRONG
2. its dogmatic
3. peer pressure keeps doubters silent to keep their jobs

yes... if you are gay in 1900 you don't come out publicly, even if you believe gay is ok, you know your peers don't think so ..so you shut up. so evolution doubters in the scientific community are stunted from speaking up

>>6974836
homo habilis? are you kidding me?
"Homo habilis is often included in ‘elephant hurled’ lists which some evolutionists use on the internet to ‘prove’ human evolution. This is misleading. Most researches agree that habilis is a ‘waste taxon’. It contains fossils of Australopithecines and Homo erectus, and therefore cannot be used as a transitional form. Milford Wolpoff told us that some used habilis ‘as a garbage bag’.[1]

Tattersall and Schwartz described ‘the status of H. habilis as an all-embracing “wastebasket” species into which a whole heterogeneous variety of fossils could be conveniently swept’.[2] Bernard Wood also noted:

“Advances in techniques for absolute dating and reassessments of the fossils themselves have rendered untenable a simple unilineal model of human evolution, in which Homo habilis succeeded the australopithecines and then evolved via H. erectus into H. sapiens.”[3]
The fossils in the category either belong to Australopithecus or Homo erectus. And so, this is not a half-human/half-ape species — just either apes or human specimens, although most are ape Australopithecines:

“The obvious taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.”[4]
Any serious evolutionist will realize that habilis can never be used as evidence for human evolution."

>>6974850
There are more species in the Australopithecus genus than just Afarensis. All this is saying is that Lucy may not be our ancestor. It doesn't say another member of the genus (e.g. Africanus) isn't.

>>6974863
That's not how fucking science works. Scientists aren't "afraid" to release game-changing information because they dont' want to be made fun of. The only reason people don't introduce information to peer review is because they know it won't stand up to the scrutiny of it.

And all your "criticisms" about habilis say is that they've been misclasified. In no way whatsoever do they imply evolution is bunk. In fact, the way they reference the other homo species and Australopithecus implies the exact opposite.

I'm sorry you lack even a fundamental understanding of how the scientific review system works, but please don't disseminate false information because of that.ni

>>6974836
homo erectus?
homos don't erect me! lmao

http://evolutiondismantled.com/erectus

>>6974867
but lucy is their STRONGEST "evidence" and it fails...

each claim is found to be extremely lacking - why?
because it isn't TRUE!!!

that's why they have to create piltdown man from a pig tooth
and constantly keep coming up with a new thing to keep it going, otherwise the smoke clears the lie is exposed

>>6974870
go do enough hard science and you will realize evolution is false.
or just read the pure evidence/raw data (anything NOT flavored with the evoltionism twist)

>>6974874
Lucy is not their strongest evidence. Not by a long shot. Please tell me, OP. What gives this website you're drawing all your information from more credit than the thousands of scientific articles which say the opposite?

Do you want to know why there are holes in evolution? Because the fossil record is incomplete. It's by definition incomplete. There are species of dinosaurs we have 1 femur bone of. Does that mean that that only one of those dinosaurs existed? Of course not. It's that fossilization is EXTREMELY rare. 99.9% of bones will never become fossils. Entire species will live and die and not one member will become fossilized. Fossilization is a window into the past. Not a video. People like you are saying "look! There's not a complete, easy-to-follow amount of bones! It's false!" But that's obviously not how it works.

The primary evidence for evolution is at the genetic level, anyway. The fossil record only adds to the evidence we already have.

Evolution as a mechanism in the world exists. Period. It's how things change. If you don't beleive it, look at fucking dogs. Through selective breeding, we took a single species and made hundreds of radically different breeds.

How is it unbelievable to think that over vastly larger amounts of time, nature doesn't do the same thing?

>>6974863
Yeah. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that man evolved from some dumb monkey when we know for a fact that God created man from dirt and woman from his rib. Non-stop biological alterations over billions of years couldn't possibly result in any meaningful changes. That's just what the evil devil scientists want you to think so they can trick you into Satan's master plan.

>>6974874
That's like saying that disproving the ramp theory of how the pyramids were built disproves the existence of the pyramids.

We don't need to map every single step on the evolutionary chain. We can see the results of evolution today. It's clear. It's as obvious as the Pyramids. We know evolution is a process. Disproving one theory of how a certain species evolved does zilch to the theory of evolution as a whole. We know we exist, adn we know we got here via evolution over millions of years. Anything else is just details.

>>6974883
>Evolution as a mechanism in the world exists. Period. It's how things change. If you don't beleive it, look at fucking dogs. Through selective breeding, we took a single species and made hundreds of radically different breeds.

this!

nice. dogs makes dogs. RIGHT?
dogs don't make cats.
they don't make rats (unless you count ankle biters).

DNA breaks down a bit... this is DEVOLUTON
that's why you can selectively breed for long ears or better smell while cutting out other parts which make a dog a dog (most wolf like version).

if you can get a great dane to mate with a pug, the result would be something closer to the original wolf than either parent... because the pup is getting more DNA info as the parents have been bred to have LESS. this is why you don't fuck your sister.

notice how people get more and more diseases and birth defects with each generation? DEVOLUTION!!! not evolution.

why won't you follow where the facts lead?

you blindly accept everything the system feeds you as it fits your precepts already.

i know you won't believe me. but i used to believe in evolution too... but the evidence is truly pointing away from it.

>>6974892
but you can't even prove there is a chain... the whole chain is missing... not just a link here or there.

NEVER ONCE has evolution been proven to happen. even in small organisms with very rapid generation successions.

figure that by now at least an amoeba would evolve into a paramecium or something.

>>6974907
This is by far the dumbest post on /sci/ of 2014.

Congratulations, OP! You only have to defend your title for 3 days. Think you can manage?

>>6974912
ur angry cuz you can't defend against truth

it's ok... you don't have to attack me by calling me dumb

i'm not out to hurt you.
i'm here to help you

>>6974907
Stupid, blind scientists. Desperately clinging to their stupid science. Dogs can't turn into cats you idiots! Accept the facts! EVILution is false! Praise the Lord!

>>6974912
seriously... find the flaw in logic with that post

rather than just calling it dumb

either you are a troll or stupid or lazy to just ad hominem attack me

>>6974920
SCIENCE is what disproves evolutionism

>>6974910
Evolution takes another critical hit! Ameoba haven't ever been seen evolving. Nothing has ever been seen evolving. I've never seen an ameoba evolve into a monkey! Evolution proved false once again. Praise God!

>>6974924
>>6974918

Not one person on /sci/ is taking you serious, as evident by >>6974912 and >>6974920.

Just stop. Go talk to someone who cares. You think you're redpilling us. You're not. You think you're on the side of science. You're not. You truly believe you are. that's fine. But none of us do. Not one of us, OP. Not a goddamned person on /sci/ right now legitimately views this thread as anything but a joke.

Do yourself a favor and leave. Or stay and be laughed at. The choice is yours.

>>6974755
so I saw this
and I'm going to post the best copy pasta of all time
thread incoming OP, make your case there

>>6974924
Yes! Science has proven evolution false. It's a known fact that evolution is false. That's why no scientists actually believe it. It's why no scientists support it and why most scientists actively denounce it. It's no longer a scientific theory and only those evil liberals keep teaching it in their devil schools.

>>6974755

They have evolved into different races

The primary races are caucasoid negroid, mongoloid, and Australiod.

They are also sub-races.

For example Caucasoid have Aryan, Semitic and Hamitic.

Unfortunately, Pseudoscience such as sociology, humanities and cultural anthropologly have infected academia for political and economic gains.

Anything to do with human biology is not scientific anymore but religious ideology.

The Cultural Marxist Religion.

>>6974796
inciting religious/scientific argument. rule 3 i believe

>>6974950
>>>/pol/

CHALLENGE:
Mayflies have the shortest lifespan on Earth. Their life lasting only for 24 hours. Mayflies also called as ‘one day insects’ because of their shortest life span. There are 2500 different species of mayflies in the world.

bet they are cheap as fuck to buy and keep and feed...

how many generations do you evolutionists think it would take for a mayfly to NOT be a mayfly anymore? when will if be a JUNEFLY?
100 generation? that's 4 months
1000 generations? 3 years
10,000 generations? 30 years...

"Within family Hominidae, orangutans (Ponginae) were the first to diverge, followed by gorillas. Molecular evidence suggests that the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees (Pan) diverged 4–8 million years ago, making humans and chimps the closest relations among the great apes"

8,000,000 years - lets be generous and give the ape to man lifespan 15 years avg lifespan - should be enough to be born and reproduce.

divide by 15 years = 533,334 generations

533,334 mayfly days = 1461 years

if we start a lab today and a trust that would fund it for 1500 years, there'd still be no new kind of creature...

>>6974953
facts are facts, which is science. i've yet to invoke a religious text or diety. i'm just pointing out that BEYOND the scientific facts, evolution is a religion. believing in things not seen. without cause.

Ok
you faggots convinced me to beLIEve in evilution.

Now that I believe, I found proof.

>>6974755
Basic fact checking and we can see that Robert Gentry's work was disproven, and Universities won't even publish his work anymore.
Nice bait though, top notch work.

>>6974959
There you have it ladies and gentlemen. He says mayflies can't evolve in 1500 years. Evolution proven false with cold hard facts. Case closed. Throw your biology books in the garbage everyone.

>>6974974
it was a challenge.
do you accept?
is anyone willing to put it to the test?
no! because you already know it won't work based on all the other evolution claims proven false already.

>>6974959
If you have one population, subject it to the same environment and let it go indefinitely, then you're damn right it won't evolve anytime soon. If you take the population, divide it in half, and then place them place one under different environmental stresses, then yes. They'd likely develop a few new traits. Become a new species? Unlikely. You're simplifying a complex natural event. Either way, you'll just call it human selection (because it is) and go back to your "degrading DNA" argument.

>>6974973
link?

>>6974978
Of course it won't work! Evolution has already been proven false with undeniable cold hard facts! Scientists are just too afraid and stubborn to admit it for the fear of God!

>>6974755
>http://www.halos.com/

This website looks like it was made more than 6000 genesis can't be true.

how can evolution be real if our eyes aren't real?

checkmate atheists

>>6974973
just a claim
no link
ur busted

gentry's work was suppressed and defamed because it questioned evolution when evolutionists didn't (and still don't) have answers

CAN ANYONE BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION KNOWING THAT "A-BIO-GENESIS" IS IMPOSSIBLE?

Moar science lessons please Mr evolutionist? OP needs schooled. Amiright?

>>6974998
Right! There's definitely no other explanation for polonium halo formation except for Gentry's. Also, since we don't know how life began that means that it didn't evolve.

>>6975010
see we can't even have a real conversation about this.
you faggots just mock.
you skirt every evidence.
and you strawman like this asshat:
>>6975011

notice the difference you scoff and neglect facts

i mock your doing that and not sticking to the science

FFS! no wonder you all stick with it, because you all pat each other on the back for mocking and scoffing and regurgitating rhetoric to each other. at no time do you ever see the raw data and hard facts... if you did you'd realize the emperor has no clothes.

>>6975020
>>6975020
They're just a bunch of dogmatic fools blind and afraid of the cold hard facts! Unlike you and me. You and I really know the truth of reality. Truly, you really are the Voice of Reason.

also, IF evolution were true
then everything is random happenstance
therefore, your body, brain and mind are just random chemical reactions without rhyme or reason and thus anything you think, say, read, hear, watch, observe is instantly unreliable by default. and can never be verified by yourself or others. conclusion: evolution (whether it is correct or not) is a figment of the imagination and has no place in reality/science.

>>6974755
Mass genocide 12,000-10,000 years ago. After we finished the slaughter, we were finally able to start farming and the rest of the story is in the bible.

>>6975032
>>6975032
What?!?! How dare you imply that I'm just a result of causality and that my perceptions are subjective! No! I have FREE WILL and everything I think and do is not a result of causality but because of the soul GOD ALMIGHTY has blessed me with! I am a free agent independent of causality!

>>6974755
>religiously believe in evolution
WAT

Why do I believe in evolution? Because of the way a tadpole metamorposes into a frog over a 6 week period. The enzymic breakdown of the tail and reconstitution as a spine, the fact that this process requires quantumn tunnelling to get thru the energy barriers of the cell walls.

Simple genetic mutations can cause huge changes in development, if you look at the photos of human embryo developnent stages you will see that it doesnt start off 'looking like' a human (and no it isnt fish/bird/monkey).

All life is a huge cooperating development of basic germ cells, it is a wonderous thing... but it IS evolutionary, i dont need a 'missing link' to know this.