/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1998736]

Is there really any SCIENTIFIC proof against evolution?
My biology teacher says that there is, but the only sites that I find "proof" against evolution are religious.

[Anonymous No.1998741]

bump

[Anonymous No.1998742]

Then tell your teacher that it is not fit to teach....

[Anonymous No.1998751]

Proof?

There's only not enough evidence to claim evolution. Or rather, it's impossible to prove evolution to those who are completely against it.

That being said, we have to use this "unproven" theory because we have a fairly high expectation that it is fact. Just like you use the Pythagorean theorem even though it's impossible to prove for all cases.

Hell, that idiot ex-professor at UCBerkeley said that AIDs was not proven to be caused by HIV because there has not been a Koch experiment to prove so...
...
...
The koch experiment requires you to infect a healthy human with AIDS. It'll be proven in the next Nazi revolution.

[Anonymous No.1998755]

No, there is presently no evidence which disproves the modern theory of evolution. There are a few improvements we've made to Darwin's original work, so if by "evolution" your teacher means "the origin of species", then sortof.

If by "proof" your teacher means falsifiable criteria then those exist. Something like a human fossil within the stomach of a dinosaur fossil would be proof against evolution if it were found, which it hasn't.

[Anonymous No.1998765]

I find it interesting how Christian scientists always come to the conclusion that evolution is not real - almost as if they had decided the outcome of the research before they even began. Are there any Christian scientists who began debunking evolution but instead found more proof of it and finally admitted they were wrong?

[Anonymous No.1998772]

Ask your teacher what "proof" she means. Quote her idiocy here, let us trash it and have a good laugh at the same time.

No such proof exists.

[Anonymous No.1998787]

>>1998736 My biology teacher says ...

You're not in one of USA's southern states are you? Christians organisation down there force themselves onto school boards then make laws forcing teachers to say shit like this.

[Anonymous No.1998790]

The "evidence" against evolution is just artificial controversy.
If I claim 1+1=2 and someone else claims 1+1=3, how do I go about proving I am right and he is wrong? I can show him that when you add one and one together you get two, but he can insist that it makes three. He can say that I don't have enough evidence. He can keep denying and denying and denying. When you have enough people doing this, 1+1=2 is not treated as a fact but as an opinion which might be as valid as another point of view, 1+1=3.
1+1=2 is "just a theory."

[Anonymous No.1998796]

"theistic evolution" have you ever heard of it ?

[Anonymous No.1998802]

>>1998765
That's essentially how I shed my christianity. I wasn't a scientist at the time, but I tried to disprove evolution and things didn't go according to plan.

[Anonymous No.1998804]

Evolution is simply defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population.

This happens on a regular basis and can be demonstrated with a simple hardy-weinburg equilibrium calculation.

It is TRIVIAL to demonstrate that evolution takes place.

The only major aspect of evolutionary theory which is under serious doubt is how microevolutionary processes - selection, genetic drift, and gene flow, which cause populations to adapt to their local environment - can result in macroevolution (speciation).

If you teacher has "proof" against evolution, tell him to show you a peer-reviewed reference supporting the claim.

[Anonymous No.1998813]

>>1998804
>The only major aspect of evolutionary theory which is under serious doubt is how microevolutionary processes - selection, genetic drift, and gene flow, which cause populations to adapt to their local environment - can result in macroevolution (speciation).

I'll call bullshit...

[Anonymous No.1998830]

>>1998813
Agreed for bullshit.

This is just Christians holding onto their god-of-the-gaps arguments with shitty logic.

Macro-evolution is a genetic change which changes the species, and organisms are classified as different species by their inability to mate and create fertile offspring.

I've seen a great dane try to mount a chihuahua. It doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.1998851]

>>1998830
Yes, the breeding test doesn't even work on established species, I can think of a fair number of fish and birds that can breed with other similar species and produce viable hybrid offspring.

[Anonymous No.1998860]

>>1998851
Name one then.

[Anonymous No.1998874]

>I've seen a great dane try to mount a chihuahua
I have to call bullshit on that one.

[Anonymous No.1998882]

>>1998860
Holacanthus bermudensis x H. ciliaris= H. townsendi

[Anonymous No.1998889]

>>1998751

>Just like you use the Pythagorean theorem even though it's impossible to prove for all cases.

wat?

[Anonymous No.1998891]

>>1998874
You clearly don't spend much time around dogs.

[Anonymous No.1998920]

>>1998882
"Holacanthus Townsendi" is a naturally occurring and infertile hybrid, not a species. It is incorrect to even use this term for Holacanthus bermudensis x Holacanthus ciliaris, but pet shop owners tend not to be strict phylogenists.

[Anonymous No.1998939]

>>1998736
No

Evolution is a fact (a truth)

\thread

[Anonymous No.1998941]

>>1998830
Wait, are you assuming I'm an anti-evolutionist bible-thumper?
Pull your head out your ass.
There are lots of questions in evolutionary biology, but the big mystery is how exactly microevolutionary processes result in speciation.

Allopatric (geographic) speciation is easy to explain, but the literature accepts that there is far too much biodiversity on the planet to be explained purely by geographic speciation alone.

So the next logical question is how speciation can occur within a freely intermingling population. There's currently a lot of controversy whether or not assortative mating alone is enough to facillitate this. Sympatric speciation DOES occur, it's just not known exactly how. And it's not enough to just hybridize in the first place, there must also be some mechanism which maintains a new hybrid species. Look into some of the work done on cichlid fish in Lakes Victoria and Malawi.

Also:
>implying a great dane and chihuahua are different "species"
>totally minsunderstand the concept of "species"

Off the top of my head, onychophorans exist in extremely isolated inbreeding populations. So far as geneticists are concerned they are all different species, and yet separate populations can interbreed freely and produce viable offspring.

About 9% of all birds are known to have produced at least one hybrid with another recognized species (see Grant and Grant 1992, Hybridization of bird species).

Not to mention it's outrageously common in plants.

[Anonymous No.1998960]

>>1998920

>"Holacanthus Townsendi" is a naturally occurring and infertile hybrid

Naturally occurring yes, infertile no.

>There seems to be no difference among the ovaries, nor among the testes, of blue angelfishes, intermediates, and queen angelfishes. No excessive amounts of connective tissue, nor aberrant cells, were seen
in the gonads of intermediates. Size and shape of the gonads were the same as those of gonads in the blue and the queen angelfishes.

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v18n2/s5.pdf?expires=1288876328
&id=59513478&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=FA87DD9DCCECDF73396C810CAE668
C22

[Anonymous No.1998989]

>>1998941
I'm not that anon, but I don't think anyone took you for a bible-thumper, and the point of the anon's post regarding the dogs is that they ARE the same species but cannot physically mate...

It was a decent point, and you missed it.

[Anonymous No.1999011]

>>1998989
Then eludicate to me? Yes, they can't mate. How and to what exactly was that relevant??

[Anonymous No.1999019]

Species by strict definition, means 2 animals that can create a VIABLE (capable of reproducing) offspring. A nice example of species on the path of divergence is horses and donkeys.

A horse and a donkey can generate offspring, but that offspring is sterile and therefore not VIABLE, therefore horses and donkeys = seperate species. This is a great example of a species diverging.

I think a great dane and chihuahua could produce viable offspring with human intervention (artificial insemination), but given enough time they would ultimately diverge because their breeding incompatibility seperates the population genomes.

[Anonymous No.1999023]

OP, it absolutely depends on what your definition of "science" is. If you consider science to be a philosophical argument made in the 1600's or a strong conviction that Ray Comfort is right, then there's plenty of scientific evidence to support your teacher's claims. If, however, you mean some kind of empirical evidence or a mathematical principle that has been violated, then no--there isn't any scientific proof that evolution is BS.

[Anonymous No.1999027]

>>1999019

Mules can be fertile.

Species classification is a bitch.

[Anonymous No.1999030]

>>1999011
It was relevant to demonstrating that the breeding test for speciation doesn't always apply.

Some animals such as the dogs mentioned are the same species but can't breed, and some animals are different species but can breed.

Therefore the question of "macroevolution" or speciation is one that is only doubted depending on our definition of "species," and our definition already allows for exceptions.

Speciation has been observed in birds, and perhaps fish. The novel species were able to back-breed with their parent species, so some would argue that they aren't distinct species. Their argument lacks merit because we don't apply the breeding test for speciation uniformly.

[Anonymous No.1999036]

>>1999027

If some mules are fertile and some aren't it just supports my point that this is 2 species diverging from a common ancestor even more...

[Anonymous No.1999053]

>>1999036

But it throws a cog in the works of:

>A horse and a donkey can generate offspring, but that offspring is sterile and therefore not VIABLE, therefore horses and donkeys = seperate species

If the Mule can be fertile.

[Anonymous No.1999055]

Christfag here:

Just because you can 'see how that might work' it doesn't make it fact.

>>1998751 Pythagoras' theorm is a THEOREM, it is proved, evolution is a 'THEORY' because it isn't proved.

I can see how your concept of evolution might work but to be honest, the complexity of both life and he universe is so minute, so infintessimal, that you can't seriously posit that 'a load of tiny changes that mean a mule can't have offspring from a donkey' can create sentient life, fine art, advanced mathematics, the processes required for this are so finely tuned that they can't have been 'random chance.'

Also, you say things evolve of biiiiiiillions of years, miiiiilllions of years. Then how did the most complex and distinctive organism (man) "evolve" in the last 100,000? Wouldn't some sort of sentience have evolved before in those biiiiiiillions of years? It's retarded.

[Anonymous No.1999060]

>>1999030
I wasn't talking about hybridization. I was talking about sympatric speciation - divergence of a freely inter-mingling population into two different species over time.

The dogs were irrelevant. They've already been artificially bred to physical extremes to the point that they can't cross. That's not the scenario in a natural population.

The "species" definition problem isn't new to me.

[Anonymous No.1999061]

>>1999055
Atheistfag here.

I read and considered your arguments and judged them to be subjective and stale.

I choose not to respond with the standard, equally stale and subjective counterarguments.

Have a great day.

[Anonymous No.1999066]

>>1999060
Did you read that recent paper on naturally occuring speciation in finches?

I don't feel like hunting it down, just curious if you read it and if so if you agreed with the authors' findings.

[Anonymous No.1999069]

>>1999061

At least explain how man suddenly seemed to 'evolve' out of nowhere in the past '100,000 years'

[Anonymous No.1999076]

>>1999069
I would need days to do that properly, I don't have time or motivation to teach biology 101.

[Anonymous No.1999079]

>>1999069
We didn't "evolve out of nowhere". We evolved out of Cro-Magnon, who evolved out of Homo sapiens idaltu, who evolved out of Homo heidelbergensis, who evolved out of Homo antecessor....

[Anonymous No.1999085]

>>1999066
I think I might have glanced over it. How recent? I have a funny feeling that I actually saw it earlier today, but I'm just about to go to bed and I'm that tired that I can barely remember.

At a guess that it's about them exhibiting sympatric speciation, I don't deny that it occurs. I'm pretty sure that it's widely accepted that it occurs, and that in numerous individual cases particular mechanisms for particular genera have been found (like the cichlids I mentioned earlier).

What I think is missing is a solid GENERAL mechanism which is agreed upon. There are all sorts of theories, and sexual selection is a good contender, but I think more solid emperical evidence is really needed.

[Anonymous No.1999094]

>>1999085
Oh and I nearly forgot to add.
I also only read this earlier:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100916/full/news.2010.476.html
Which I thought was really cool piece of research which is helping move towards a firm resolution to the speciation problem.

[Anonymous No.1999103]

>>1999085
I saw it a couple months back, I can't remember where or by who though. It's still floating around online some.

>What I think is missing is a solid GENERAL mechanism which is agreed upon.

I agree with that of course, I just didn't agree with the previous wording indicating doubt that the process occurs. We can point out that there's also no mechanism know to prevent microevolution from becoming macro. I haven't met many people that actually doubt speciation happens though.

[Anonymous No.1999108]

>>1999079

But i thought that took 'biiiiillions of years' not 100,000. So basically we see a new species every 30,000 years? And if so, why do we only have evidence of human activity for the past 6,000?

[Anonymous No.1999114]

>>1999094
Thanks! That's awesome! Just skimmed it and bookmarked it to read more later, but that looks like some great information.

I found an article that references the paper I was talking about, looks like two papers on similar events listed:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

[Anonymous No.1999117]

>>1999103
Yeah, I guess I worded that badly.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
I think I found the article you were talking about, too.

I'm glad I responded to this thread :). It's made me realize that I can remember that there are some big arguments that have been made against sexual selection as the driving mechanism for sympatric speciasion, but I can't for the life of me remember what they are. That's a hole I need to fill.

Anyway, gnite.

[Anonymous No.1999126]

>>1999117
Thanks, and gnight!

[Anonymous No.1999129]

>>1999108
Cro-Magnon was 40,000 years ago
Homo sapiens idaltu was 160,000 years ago
Homo heidelbergensis was 195,000 years ago

This is all stuff you'll learn in the first chapter of any evolutionary biology book. If you don't even know human evolutionary history how is it that you can disagree with it?

[Anonymous No.1999142]

>>1999129
It's either a troll or hopelessly unacquainted with even basic biology.

Don't bother.

[Anonymous No.1999146]

>>1999129
>Homo heidelbergensis was 195,000 years ago
try 600,000 to 400,000

[Anonymous No.1999166]

>>1999146
I guess I fucked that up. 195,000 years ago was the dating of those earliest fossils of archaic humans found at Omo river, so I just assumed that was where heidelbergensis ended.

[Anonymous No.1999174]

>>1999129

These timescales seem somewhat different to what people usually talk about. So given that they were around 7,000 years ago we are more evolved than Egyptians and Assyrians?

>>1999142

And no i'm not a troll, i am making valid questions. I can see how the argument works, I just don't think it adds up. You say i take 1+1 and make 3, but to me it seems that so do you.

[Anonymous No.1999181]

>>1999166
That's why I love reading and posting on this board, where else can we find a collection of anons like youz guyz that know this kind of stuff and discuss it :)

[sage No.1999190]

>>1998736
WTF /sci/?

THE ANSWER IS NO!
WTF ARE YOU DEBATING FOR?

Number of scientific papers in suporrt of evolution = thousands

Number of scientific papers against evolution = none

\thread

[Anonymous No.1999193]

>>1999174 they were around 7,000 years ago we are more evolved than Egyptians and Assyrians?

What the fuck am I reading?
Egyptians and Assyrians are around today. Are you talking about anciant Egyptian and Assyrian you're talking about cultures no older than 3000 years.

Seriously kid, learn history before arguing with it.

[Anonymous No.1999210]

>>1998751
>Pythagorean
>impossible to prove for all cases
>mfw there are over 300 proofs for the Pythagorean theorem
>mfw when most of them work in any number of dimensions, including infinity

[Anonymous No.1999217]

>>1999190
>WTF ARE YOU DEBATING FOR?

Scientists debate, it's in the job description.

[Anonymous No.1999219]

>>1999193

Yes i mean ancient and those civilisations are, according to wikipedia over 5000 years old, learn to dfference between AD and BC and add that into sum of age.

So according to this and evolution is truee >>1999129
if they are over 5,000 years old we are at least 1/8 along to our next distinct evolution, so are we more evolved than those people?

[Anonymous No.1999236]

>>1999219
We are slightly more biologically evolved than ancient Egyptians. For example you have immunity to the bubonic plague, they do not. There may be a slight change in average intelligence, but you could still put any ancient Egyptian child in a present day school and they'd do fine.

What you're doing is confusing technological advancement with biological evolution.

[sage No.1999240]

>>1999217
Yes, they debate if there is scientific evidence to debate. However all the scientifc evidence is in support of evolution! There is no longer scientifc debate about evolution, it ended long long ago.

Nowadays only religious nut jobs debate evolution, and they dont use science, they use FAIRYTALES! GTFO! TROLL!

[Anonymous No.1999255]

>>1999240
Didn't read the thread, did ya?

It's ok, feel free to stop in, call people trolls, and get mad without understanding what's up. We don't mind.

[Anonymous No.1999260]

>>1999219
You're confusing real life with x-men. you don't get 'move evolved'. You can't measure evolution as if its a level.

That aside modern society has largely eliminated natural selection. Beneficial mutations don't have a significant effect on the likely hood of passing on your genes and the low number of children we have means it takes even longer for beneficial mutations to pass through the population.

[Anonymous No.1999263]

>>1999174
the reason it doesn't add up for you, is because you don't understand
every single comment you've made contains huge misconceptions about evolution and timescales

[Anonymous No.1999266]

>>1999236

no, i know in some ways we are more technologically advanced (although i was reading how we coulnd't rebuild a pyramid in the same time as them), what i'm arguing is that if evolution is true we would be different from them, but there is no evidence of that, even given the vast time scale difference.

If humans evolved from Cro-magnon in the last 40,000 years, 5-7,000 years is a significant time frame for us to be evolving. What i am saying is to me that doesn't seem right and i don't think we did evolve. In school they told us a species makes evolutionary jumps over millions of years and yet they then say man evolved in the last 100,000 (or 40,000 according to people here)

That doesn't add up, so i can accept criticism if you can't see my way of thinking and tell me i say 1+1 = 3, but i can see your way of thinking, i considered it seriously and concluded that you also say 1 + 1 = 3.

[Anonymous No.1999272]

>>1999266 although i was reading how we coulnd't rebuild a pyramid in the same time as them

The stupid it burns.

[Anonymous No.1999277]

>>1999266
You do realise that the cro-magnon people are of the same species as us?
They are almost identical to us.
Besides, evolution is not linear, it is not dragonball z, and it has no direction.

[sage No.1999278]

>>1999255
Your bio teacher is a dumshit or is trolling you

\thread

[Anonymous No.1999280]

>>1999266
Evolution is caused by a need. The rabbit who has longer ears can hear the predator coming and goes on to have more children who also posses the trait and do a better job of avoiding being killed.

There has been evolution since mans inception. All the different races. White skin is evolution as it's a reaction to the lower sun levels outside of equatorial regions.

[Anonymous No.1999281]

>>1999266
>if evolution is true we would be different from them, but there is no evidence of that

So you're saying you're current with ongoing research in morphometrics? Or are you guessing and in fact haven't checked to see if we're different?

[Anonymous No.1999284]

>>1999266
This is a Cro-Magnon. Its just a specimen of archaic human. Its not a gorilla.

[Anonymous No.1999285]

>>1999260

also according to evolution, genetic drift just happens, it is not a natural selection thingm and then people say that it is natural selection and survival of the fittest, it is a very contradictory theory in its own rite given the arguments you are submitting. But i think it is interesting and i am glad you are for once putting real scrutiny on evolution.

[sage No.1999288]

Biology teachers will often "challenge" there stuents to find scientific evidence againt evolution (of which non exists), only to teach the students a fucking lessson.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION!

way to learn your lesson bro

\thread

[Anonymous No.1999293]

>>1999278
I'm not OP, I think OP posted and then went straight to bed.

are you stoned?

Keep /thread'ing and see if it sticks.

[sage No.1999295]

>>1999293
\thread

[sage No.1999298]

troll \thread

[Anonymous No.1999299]

>>1999295
You're the only troll here, ass.

[Anonymous No.1999304]

>>1999299
ITT: Trolls

[Anonymous No.1999305]

>>1999266 evolutionary jumps

Evolution doesn't work in "jumps". It is a gradual process. When you look at these evolution charts you need to realise there are a few thousand humans between each of them each slightly less like the ancestor behind them and slightly more like the descendant in front of them.

>>inb4 evolution is not linear

[Anonymous No.1999307]

>>1999285
Yes evolution is complex, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Evolution is the most credible model for how the world works. Your arguments make it clear that you don't know a huge amount about it. Read up on it using real books and see how you feel.

[sage No.1999316]

>thinks there is scientifc evidence against evolution

anymore jokes bro?

[Anonymous No.1999352]

>>1999305

Ok, so where does new information in a genome come from if it is all what was already there but ever so slightly changed? If we are 99% the same as an ancestor, we can simply reconfigure the cell and 'resurrect' an extinct species. Maybe i don't know as much about evolution as you do because i am not a biology major. But i do understand what they say the theory says (HERP DERP why are there still monkies if humans evolved from them HERP DERP is bullshit) and i hope you recognise my line of inquiry is more sophisticated than that.

But if we have genetic drift which i understand to be the main cause of evolution, random mutation, which confers some kind of advantage if we supply a selection pressure, how do i have so many distinnct genes that seperate me from other mammals? And i will post a counter argument i made for 'if the bible is right there is no free will HERP DERP' in a minute but it's a bit off topic. It just seems to me there are a lot of holes in the theory and i don't argue the God of gaps, all i am saying is you confuse coincindence for fact.

[Anonymous No.1999358]

Arguments against evolution:

1. How did life form in the first place?
2. How does new genetical information appear? Mutations don't create new genes, they just rearrange or damage old ones.

But in the end, who the fuck cares.

[Anonymous No.1999366]

>>1999352
>Doenst understand basic biology or evolution
>writes incoherent nonsense

religion much?

[Axel the Possum No.1999370]

>>1999358

>How does new genetical information appear? Mutations don't create new genes, they just rearrange or damage old ones.

This makes me twitch...

EVOLUTION DOES NOT CREATE NEW THINGS!

Now let me qualify that. Every evolutionary feature you see is the result of modification of existing features over EXTREME lengths of time. You do not get "new features", you get copies of existing ones or slight modifications of them that, over time, become features that appear novel but are merely extensive modifications.

[Axel the Possum No.1999376]

>>1999370

Should mention that, with enough mutations, the comparison between ancestor and modern form is diverse enough a change that you might as well call it novel, but everything you see is just a modification of an existing feature given enough time to develop complexity.

[Anonymous No.1999377]

>>1999358
>lists nonsense

None of that shit is an argument againt evolution. They are arugments that show you have no idea what evolution is.

[Anonymous No.1999383]

>>1998802
same, and now I'm studying biotechnolgy.

[The Arch Angel, Noctis !ao2Yq0Q2CE No.1999391]

>>1999366
Yet false oneist academia is ~not litter~ in your opinion. Children are able to have amazing imagination, an ability that brings them happiness, makes them see life in a light like no other, everything is beautiful and nothing is abstracted. Within their minds they can travel to anywhere in the galaxy, or forge their own worlds. With your ~not litter~ academia, they can only focus on society and reality, with a suppressed imagination that they cannot allow to control their actions, because to your standards, they're insane or psychotic.

I'll ask you once. Define 'litter' in the context your using it, in your own words.

[Anonymous No.1999395]

>>1999366

How am i being incoherent? I think you just don't like when people put questions to your precious theory that make you squirm and i am pointing out that i don't make bullshit arguments like 'Why are there still monkeys?' because i understand what the theory says more than that.

[Anonymous No.1999398]

>>1999358 1. How did life form in the first place?
This is not an argument against evolution. The theory of evolution does not explain abiogenesis in the same way it does not explain gravity; its not a theory of everything, only how life develops after coming into existence.

>>2. How does new genetical information appear? Mutations don't create new genes, they just rearrange or damage old ones.

Mutations do create new genes. Its called an insertion mutation. The gene duplication fucks up and copies something twice, it is very common.

[FOR SANITY!!!! No.1999420]

I'm always surprised by the inability of people to see through creationist lies.

[Anonymous No.1999422]

>>1999352 how do i have so many distinnct genes that seperate me from other mammals?

You share 98% of your DNA with a chimpanzee.
You share 60% of your DNA with a fruit fly.
You share 40% of our DNA with a tomotoe.

[Anonymous No.1999428]

>>1999370

Then why does the human genome have 30,000 genes and drosophila only has 14,000. There must be new information there somewhere.

[Anonymous No.1999434]

>>1999428
See>>1999398
Insertion mutation.

[Anonymous No.1999438]

>>1999422

But a chimpanzee does not share 98% of its genetical information with me because it has 2 more chromosomes than i do....

[Anonymous No.1999439]

>>1998736
You can't disprove evolution because it doesn't make any testable claims.

[Anonymous No.1999446]

>>1999398
Before this confuses you, though, usually this mutation does not result in a change in fenotype. In other words, evolution is not about creating as many genes as possible, because that is somehow better.

[sage No.1999447]

>>1999428
How fucking old are you?
You dont even seem to have a grasp of evolution little yet biology!

GTFO!

[Anonymous No.1999449]

>>1998751

Pythagorean theory can be, and is, proven to be true for all cases.

[Anonymous No.1999450]

>>1999439
See
>>1998755 a human fossil within the stomach of a dinosaur fossil would be proof against evolution

[Anonymous No.1999454]

Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: Jesus died for our sins.
Conclusion: Evolution is false.

I don't understand why people believe in such nonsense as evolution. You're free to believe that you came from a monkey, but I base my world view based on critical thought and empiricism.

[Anonymous No.1999456]

The generalization of pythagoras theorem is the law of cosines

[Anonymous No.1999460]

>>1999438

Chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion between 2 chromosomes in apes, so yes, we can share 98% of genes with apes.

[Anonymous No.1999464]

>>1999454

[Anonymous No.1999465]

>>1999454

Amen brother. Atheists don't understand that their religion is based on NOTHING. It's madness.

Atheists, what proof and evidence do you have that proves atheism is accurate and correct?

Nothing? Thought so.

LOL. Oh it's madness. It's just faith, faith in nothing.

[Anonymous No.1999469]

>>1999438
Two sets don't need to be of equal size to have an intersection. This is grade 5 shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(set_theory)

[sage No.1999479]

>>1999465
Yeah, stupid atheists, why dont they relize that SATANISM is undisputed truth!

man can from monKEYS mY ass
HAIL SATAN!

[Anonymous No.1999482]

There is proof against natural selection
I mean if an animal does carry a mutation how does it change the whole gene pool?

[sage No.1999491]

>>1999465
AMEM!
HAIL SATAN
I WILL ASK SATAN TO TAKE YOU TONIGHT!
WE CAN BE TOGETHER IN THE PIT

[Anonymous No.1999494]

>>1999447
>>1999447

If evolution is right then everything came from common ancestors. It is in the ANIMAL kingdom, and so is more similar to me than a tomato (PLANT) or a mushroom (FUNGI) so it is not a bad comparison.

>>1999422
>>1999422

I share 60% of my DNA with a fruitfly, so with over twice the number of genes if that is true, every gene in a fruitfly i have (i call bullshit to that).

It seems you don't understand the theory you are so precious about and i am simply putting a counter-argument. And your response to reasoned criticism is to shout, Sage and decry and attack my credibility. You are not countering my points, you are calling me a retard. That is called an Ad Hominem attack and shows that your argument probably has little credibilty, not that you care to make one because your argument is Ad Hominem.

So you GTFO, other people here are giving constructive and interesting points and counter-points and you start raging like a spoiled child.

[sage No.1999500]

>>1999482
so you dont know anything about evolution?
you are just talking out your ass?

[Anonymous No.1999505]

>>1999479
What satanist think satan does:
He's bad ass with an electric guitar
What satan really does:
-makes people commit suicide
-makes people morbidly obese
-Makes vain people get plastic surgery until they look like frankestein
-Makes greedy people hoard their money while they live in a shithole
-Makes lazy people turn homeless
-Makes dumb whores turn to prostitution
-Makes people addicted to drugs
-etc...

[Anonymous No.1999506]

>>1999465
>>1999479
>>1999491

Fuck off trolls we're having a debate and it is actualy interesting. I have not put forth my religious views as they are not the point of debate so GTFO

[Anonymous No.1999515]

>>1999505
Sounds like an excuse. Satan's such a convenient embodiment of human failure, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.1999518]

Evolution doesn't conflict with a lot of religions, actually.

[Anonymous No.1999524]

>>1999465
Christianity! It's faith, faith in nothing! LOL.

[Anonymous No.1999535]

>>1999515
He's an embodiment of doubt, sadness and all the things that don't allow us to live happy lives

[Anonymous No.1999537]

Back to the evolutionary debate.

[Anonymous No.1999538]

>>1999505

What satan really does:
-makes people commit suicide
-makes people morbidly obese
-Makes vain people get plastic surgery until they look like frankestein
-Makes greedy people hoard their money while they live in a shithole
-Makes lazy people turn homeless
-Makes dumb whores turn to prostitution
-Makes people addicted to drugs
-etc...

DURRRRR........thats why SATAN IS MY PERSONAL SAVIOR!

HAIL SATAN!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.1999542]

>>1999538
So you're basically worshiping an asshole that gets a kick out of seeing you suffer?

[Anonymous No.1999543]

>>1999450
the *theory* of evolution does not imply dinosaurs and humans weren't alive at the same time. That's like saying a egg-laying duck-billed venomous beaver with webbed feet and electro reception would disprove evolution (it doesn't)

[Anonymous No.1999544]

>>1999535
>>1999524
aLLRIGHT! Finally a cool satanism thread! Yeah!

[Anonymous No.1999546]

>>1999543
lol this is too much
Haven't you heard of carbon dating?

[Anonymous No.1999549]

>>1999542
NAW, me and SATAN ARE cool!
He hurts eveyone but me.....DURRR
Its faith, right?

[Anonymous No.1999550]

>>1999544
would you worship me if I kept you in a dungeon and tortured you?

[Anonymous No.1999561]

>>1999546
I think my statements implicitly accepted the valdity of dating techniques. Regardless, does carbon dating affect my statements in any particular fashion? I don't see how carbon dating is relevant here.

[Anonymous No.1999562]

>>1999543
You enjoy talking bullshit too?
HAIL SATAN!

LETS GET TOGETHER BLEEDDDDDDDD!

[Anonymous No.1999567]

Can I get an S!

[Anonymous No.1999569]

>>1999549
>>1999544
>>1999538
>>1999535
>>1999524
>>1999515
>>1999505
>>1999491
>>1999479
>>1999465

Probably all this faggot ruining the thread because he got mad at recieving criticism.

>>1999447

[Anonymous No.1999570]

>>1999494
You don't just get to call bullshit because you don't like a piece of science. As someone who's worked with drosophila and used them as disease models I can confirm that you are very wrong.

[Anonymous No.1999572]

>>1999567
S!

[Anonymous No.1999577]

>>1999572
Can I get an A!

[Anonymous No.1999579]

>>1999561
Its relevant because you're suggesting that humans and dinosaurs were alive during the same time period.
According to the carbon dating of the dinosaurs bones that is not the case.

[Anonymous No.1999582]

>>1999577
A! fuck yeah!

Hail SATANNNNNN

[Anonymous No.1999584]

>>1999570

Please enlighten me as to how i am wrong? I am accepting that you know more than me and i am wrong and not saying i am right here, i am interested as to how i am wrong

[Anonymous No.1999586]

>>1999582
What about a T?
as in the Bloody TITS OF HELL!
sUcK tHAT Puss oUT

[Sarcastro No.1999589]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs

thread

[Anonymous No.1999590]

>>1999579
that would invalidate carbon dating, not evolution.

[Anonymous No.1999592]

>>1999586
i'LL give you a T and raise you anothe A

checkmate
All praise be to our dark lord

[Anonymous No.1999593]

>>1999590

Carbon dating only goes back a few thousand years, retard.

[Anonymous No.1999601]

>>1999592
AND AN "N"!

WHAT DOES THAT SPELL
"SATAN" "SATAN" SATAN"!!
Hip hip horray, three cheers for SATAN!

[Anonymous No.1999620]

>>1999593
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age.htm

[Anonymous No.1999626]

>>1999620

That's radiometric dating, retard.

Carbon-dating is a form of radiometric dating, but it can not be used to date anything as old as dinosaurs, since it only goes back a few thousand years.

Other radiometric dating forms are used for fossils that age.

[Anonymous No.1999646]

>>1999590
let me restate that.

what would occur would be a conflict between two dating techniques, carbon dating and paleontology. One or both of them being invalidated would not be enough to invalidate evolution.

[Anonymous No.1999664]

I CALL BULLSHIT ON RELIGION AND EVOLUTION.

U mad? U jelly?

[Anonymous No.1999754]

>>1999266
>what i'm arguing is that if evolution is true we would be different from them, but there is no evidence of that, even given the vast time scale difference.

Allow me to answer this, first of all, we ARE in fact different from people 10 thousand years ago, average heights were nearly a foot shorter than they are today, we have evolved greater racial diversity, Lactose tolerance only reached appreciable levels in the last 10K years, and we are notably more docile than in the past (early civilization tended to select for those who were able to use diplomacy) and right up until modern medicine, desiease was also a huge evolutionary factor for humans. >Con't.

[Anonymous No.1999757]

But here's the reason we're not seeing humans evolve to have wings or tenticles, which I get the feeling is more what you're talking about. Evolution is a reaction, not a force. Evolution happens when a hostile environment allows for a single physical attribute to reign supreme, like my picture. Human evolution has plateued (to an extent) because we, working as a society, are suited to survive in every viable environment on earth. One example of how we're removing natural selection from evolution is child birth. Women with a certain type of hip structure have difficult giving birth, and a large percentage die during delivery because of medical complications or an inability to pass the child. In a natural environment, the genes for those hips would die out, and many human populations would evolve to have wider hips. However, because many commonplace medical technologies allow the delivery to be successful, the woman's genes are passed on and natural selection is stopped in it's tracks.

>Con't

[Anonymous No.1999759]

>>1999664
"u jelly" doesn't even make sense there.

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.1999761]

>Derp, forgot pic


Humans won't begin to see major physical changes again unless our environment changes drastically in a fashion we can't handle. You see this frequently in the fossil record. Periods of relative stabilty, in which most animals are suited to their environment and there is little evolution, followed by periods of drastic change and consequently rapid evolution (as seen in the Cambrian explosion)

Another example would we the shark, it has very few natural predators, and is well suited to it's environment, thus it's changed virtually nil over the last 100 million years. It reached that stage of evolution long before humans.


>In school they told us a species makes evolutionary jumps over millions of years and yet they then say man evolved in the last 100,000 (or 40,000 according to people here)

When people say evolution happens over billions of years, they mean from the very first abiogenesis to where we are today. When they say hundreds of millions of years, they're talking about grand evolutionary periods, not the time between one hunched over type of man to a slightly less hunched over type of man.

>Con't

[Anonymous No.1999791]

>That doesn't add up, so i can accept criticism if you can't see my way of thinking and tell me i say 1+1 = 3, but i can see your way of thinking, i considered it seriously and concluded that you also say 1 + 1 = 3.

I've been in your position before, so please trust me when I say this, Investigate everything very carefully. That includes your own beliefs and evolution if that's what it takes for your to trust it. But remember, thousands of scientists have put in millions of man-hours over neigh 200 hundred years studying evolution. If a flaw in the theory is found, chances are it won't be from an inconsistency found in a high school text, or something you come up with while daydreaming.

[Anonymous No.1999832]

Information required to describe the positions of a perfectly ordered set of blocks: low

Information required to describe the positions of these blocks after they are knocked down: high

Where did I get this new information?

Oh, creationists are talking about USEFUL information, something that is even more likely to exist only in our minds.

[Anonymous No.1999977]

>>1999791
truth

[Anonymous No.2000176]

>>1999759

U jelly you didn't think of it first? I think we already answered that. U jelly, asspie.