[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 38 KB, 468x313, evolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

2351595

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 04:54:13 2011 No.2351595 [Reply] [Original]

This is what I honestly believe happend.

To the best of my understanding one of the main problems with mainstream evolutionary theory is that mutations have a tendancy to simplify rather than complexify.

This to me seems like the only reasonable explanation, bear with me on this I'll tell u why:

People Identify with animals.
When you see a cat you can relate because you have acted similarly in your life, when you see a hippo you can also relate. On the other hand,

Animals do not identify with people or other animals.
The cat does not look at the hippo and think "i have acted like this" because he hasn't, and similarly the hippo cannot identify with the cat at all.

So this has led me to the conclusion that animals are merely fragmented reflections of humanity.I have seen humanity cease to evolve, it's only next logical route is to diversify to places you couldn't even imagine, and I don't think it's too farfetched to say that this could have happened already or that humans couldn't ahve been first on this planet.

TL;DR All animals evolved from humans because evolution always simplifies and because they are like us but we aren't like them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 04:55:13 2011 No.2351597 File: 37 KB, 340x416, Jarvis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 04:56:13 2011 No.2351605 >evolution always simplifies NOPE.dmg

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 04:58:13 2011 No.2351611 File: 8 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 04:58:13 2011 No.2351608 >>2351605 The TL;DR is not my base argument, I said "has a tendancy to" in the real thing, but for some people that's too long

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:01:13 2011 No.2351619 Interesting pictures, but, what I said is feasable no? Anyone here know anything about evolution that proves me wrong? Just reverse all your algorithms you'd be amazed at the results

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:02:13 2011 No.2351621 Subtle-troll is subtle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:07:13 2011 No.2351628 Humans are animals. Animals in general have been around a lot longer than humans have; we know this by fossil dating. Doesn't OP know this already?

>>

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:14:13 2011 No.2351638

>>2351628
>Humans are animals

Could that not be because animals are all humans who have lost most of their genetic code?

>Animals in general have been around a lot longer than humans have; we know this by fossil dating.
As I said we have reached the pinacle of evolution and are now proceeding to lose the ingterity of our genetic coding. Aditionally there are several ways that present day humans could be wiped off the face of the earth, nuke wars for example. I'm sure in the future we will invent many more ways to wipe humanity off the face of the earth, especially if we start to divide into animalistic sub-species.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:15:13 2011 No.2351640 It's simple when there's no pressure we evolve away from humanity but when the pressure's back on we evolve back towards it, and other palces.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:18:13 2011 No.2351643 >>2351619 yes, radiometric dating and micro biology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:19:13 2011 No.2351647 >>2351643 Reverse the algorithms

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:37:13 2011 No.2351716 >>2351643 I mean to say I made it clear here >>2351628 When they said fossil dating, which I assume is the common name for what you said why I didn't think this was relevant. Micro-biology is a field of study, how does that disprove me?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 05:40:13 2011 No.2351731 /sci/ your response has been far from scientific I'd say you aren't being open minded and scientific about this at all. Inafter >A scientist told me humans weren't here first so we weren't end of story

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:17:13 2011 No.2351834 You guys know that carbon dating is inacurate right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:20:13 2011 No.2351844 >.I have seen humanity cease to evolve Fucking OP, tell the rest of how you've managed to live hundreds of thousands of years!!!! You could have saved us the time to set up the Manhattan Beach Project!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:24:13 2011 No.2351860 The troll is weak with this one master Yoda. Humans have a higher propensity to be empathetic towards animals exhibiting similarities because of our more advanced sociological programming. //End of line.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:24:13 2011 No.2351861 >>2351844 Well because I have seen that the weak can live and breed without fear of death, that those weaker than the average have every chance to be the future of humanity

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:24:13 2011 No.2351865 >>2351860 Animals have only one mode of being, we have many, some of mine are similar to an animals only one

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:27:13 2011 No.2351869 >>2351865 That's stupid and you should feel bad

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:28:13 2011 No.2351872 >>2351869 None of this is proving me wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:35:13 2011 No.2351896 >>2351872 You haven't actually put forth a quantifiable argument. It's just as valid to say "if everyone in the world ate turtles 24/7, we'd all be happy." It's not a quantifiable argument, and is therefore bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:40:13 2011 No.2351910 >>2351896 I study phychology and I'm telling you right now I cld prove that within a 5% margin of error

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:41:13 2011 No.2351915 >>2351834 >You guys know that carbon dating is inacurate right? You know there's a shitton of other kinds of radioactive dating besides carbon dating? You know carbon dating has been proven accurate through dendrochronology?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:41:13 2011 No.2351914 >>2351896 IV: ppl eat turtles DV: ppl are happy

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:42:13 2011 No.2351918 >>2351865 >Animals have only one mode of being, What the fuck does this even mean? >we have many, some of mine are similar to an animals only one

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:42:13 2011 No.2351920 >>2351915 U guys know dendrochronology is inacurate right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:43:13 2011 No.2351922 >>2351920 >U guys know dendrochronology is inacurate right? No it's not. Hard mode: Tell me what dendrochronology is without googling it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:43:13 2011 No.2351923 >>2351918 People can be one way one day and another the next

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:45:13 2011 No.2351927 >>2351923 Ok. I'm not even going to attempt to dispute such a vague position. Even with that, I don't see how that offers any support at all for this "reverse evolution" bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:46:13 2011 No.2351931 U guys know my spelling is inacurate right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 06:46:13 2011 No.2351933 >>2351922 You guys know google is inacurate right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 07:04:13 2011 No.2351969 OP, take a look at the fossil record some time. Homo sapiens has only been around for 2 million years compared to the clades that you think descended from it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 07:04:13 2011 No.2351966 Are you even serious? >mutations have a tendancy to simplify rather than complexify Nucleotide deletion is the only mutation that results in a loss of information.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 07:13:13 2011 No.2351991 >>2351969 U guys know the fossil record is inacurate right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 07:37:13 2011 No.2352034 >>2351991 If we had never dug up a single fossil, the direction of evolution would still be obvious to non-trolls.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 07:45:13 2011 No.2352043 >>2352034 Well that's the difference between the obvious and the true isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 07:51:13 2011 No.2352055 File: 209 KB, 896x1646, square is a circle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What's the problem, OP? Did big ole scary evolution make you question your faith in lord jebus?

>>

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 07:53:13 2011 No.2352058

>To the best of my understanding one of the main problems with mainstream evolutionary theory is that mutations have a tendancy to simplify rather than complexify.

They have no tendency to lean towards either outcome. The rest of your argument does not follow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 08:33:13 2011 No.2352150 >>2351595 >To the best of my understanding Main problem here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 08:36:13 2011 No.2352155 File: 37 KB, 500x305, baby_hippo_04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] > problems with mainstream evolutionary theory lolno.jpg > Animals do not identify with people or other animals Pic related. It's a sea turtle that adopted a baby hippo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 09:08:13 2011 No.2352238 >>2352155 That's a tortoise moron. Your argument is invalid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 09:14:13 2011 No.2352257 >>2352238 A tortoise? What's that?