[ 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

View post   
File: 65 KB, 500x437, monkeys.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3427870 No.3427870 [Reply] [Original]

So my thread was deleted because a bunch of atheist evolutionists tried censoring me when they realized they couldn't answer my questions and I and another poster cornered them.
>>http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/3421490#p3422247
1. If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?
2. Why are there no transitional fossils? Artists renditions and fake skeletons made out of concrete don't count.
3. why do people still have faith in macro evolution, knowing that there is no direct evidence for it, and that all the so-called "evidence" for macro (not micro) evolution is bogus?

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>> No.3427875

i don't blame you kids for believing in evolution; you've only been spoon-fed it your entire government school run lives, and taught to immediately dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

look at all the evidence. the evidence presented in this thread took 5 minutes to refute. no, it's not a walking whale, it's a dinosaur. no, that fish didn't walk on its fins, it used them to hunt prey in the water. no, man and ape do not share a common ancestor, as there is no common ancestor, only the thought that there should be, if evolution is right.

it is not right. you have to have faith in it. it begs for your faith. you have to believe that the universe spontaneously generated itself somehow, or by gravity, and you have to believe you are the product of random chance.

so your life is meaningless, in that it only has the meaning you ascribe to it.

no loving God. no angels. no devil. no heaven. no hell. just a short, brief, painful life and then a dirt nap.

the universe does not operate like that, and no amount of belief in evolution will ever change God.

>> No.3427878

They banned me and tried to censor me, just like they censored Kent Hovind by arresting him on false charges and chased VenomFangX off youtube with bogus legal threats.
Why can't evolutionists actually discuss anything? Why do they always sink to censorship? Is it because they have something to hide? I think so

>> No.3427879
File: 26 KB, 300x300, poor_troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3427879

no sage = op samefagging

>> No.3427885

Well, why atheists? Can't your all-powerful intellect come up with a satisfactory answer?

>> No.3427897

>>3427879
Yeah call me a troll because you know I'm right and you can't answer.

>> No.3427899

If you have to keep self bumping it, it's not a good troll. Back to the drawing board.

>> No.3427904

>>3427899
I agree. Sorry, OP. Looks like you did all that typing for nothing. Better luck next time.

>> No.3427906

>>3427899
Your just mad because you know I'm right.
Having fun hating god because your parents took away all your nintendos?

>> No.3427907

If your going to troll, then troll. This is way too obvious you jism gulper. unless this is somekind of uber mindfuck 2nd level troll, in which case you failed too cos I spotted it. However if this is a 3rd level operation mindfuck troll then I congratulate you - o completely failed to see through it. Now go wipe your dirty shitty cock on the bible and fap at thought of Allah raping your mum.

>> No.3427914

>>3427906
nobody is hating god silly

we hate his retared creations (people like you)
Man he loves us all and even them he made people with down syndrome... stillbirth... smalpox... Shit HE REALLY LOVES YOU!

>> No.3427916

>>3427870
>http://youtu.be/wh0F4FBLJRE
2 questions to go.

>> No.3427924
File: 53 KB, 346x396, Pie-in-the-Sky..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3427924

>no loving God. no angels. no devil. no heaven. no hell. just a short, brief, painful life and then a dirt nap.
Actually, I don't have a problem with this. Live life, don't waste it hoping for something better, like the slave masters tell you: "Just work your ass off, pray every day and life gets better after you die." What a load of crap.

>> No.3427931

>>3427914
>>3427924
>no sage
>doing it wrong

>> No.3427951

>>3427897
We had this exact thread yesterday and you got schooled on all points. You are intellectually dishonest, sad really.

>1. If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?
We didn't evolve from any other ape currently on this planet. We just share a common ancestor with primates. Evidence for this is our DNA similarities and our 2nd chromosome being a fused primate chromosome (1&2 fused). Evidence for that are vestigial centro and telomeres plus gene similarity.
There are other primates because when the common ancestor spread, gene pools got seperated and evolved seperately.

>2. Why are there no transitional fossils? Artists renditions and fake skeletons made out of concrete don't count.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, but I'd like to point your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
(pic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiktaalik_belgium.JPG).).
The creature has both fish and tetrapod (4 feet) traits, making it a transitional form.

>3. why do people still have faith in macro evolution, knowing that there is no direct evidence for it, and that all the so-called "evidence" for macro (not micro) evolution is bogus?

Micro evolution: no gene pool seperation, creatures can still mate and have feasible (fertile etc) offspring. Dog breeds are micro evolution.
Macro evolution: in short, speciation. Seperation of gene pools. Any change which causes one population to no longer be sexually compatible with another. There's many cases of observed speciation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils for fossils, see how domestic sheep can't produce offspring with the mouflon, a subspecies of wild sheep, see any experiment with fruit flies (you can even replicate it easily).

I'm copypasting this by the way.
How to ruin a troll thread: teach.

>> No.3427954

I will bite.
>>1. If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?
2. Why are there no transitional fossils? Artists renditions and fake skeletons made out of concrete don't count.
3. why do people still have faith in macro evolution, knowing that there is no direct evidence for it, and that all the so-called "evidence" for macro (not micro) evolution is bogus?

1 Because not all of a species will evolve in one way. Blacks for example have a pigment in their skin that causes them to not get wrinkles as they age when compared to a white person.

2. There are transitional fossils. The problem is that each time one is found religion starts spouting about where is the link between that fossil and the other one.

3. Because evidence of macroevolution is all around us. Bears, humans, birds, the list can go on and on. Heck they even have shown that something as simple as a jolt of electricity can grow an extra chamber in the heart of a sea cucumber.

2/10 though you did get me to respond to the nonsense.

>> No.3427961

>>3427931
FTFY

>> No.3427963

>>3427870
1)
a)We didn't evolve from apes, but rather we have a common ancestor with them.
b)It doesn't matter whether or not the thing we evolved from still exists, seeing as species generally split into herds, a single herd could be the ones with the mutations.
2)If evolution is true, and it is, then every fossil is a transition. Go to a museum.
3)We don't have faith, fuck off you troll. The evidence includes, but is definitely not limited to: embryology, genetics and fossils.
Your idea of a satisfactory answer is clearly us on our backs writhing in pain after our "egos" are severely damaged after finding out that we're wrong. You're a fucking moron.

>> No.3427983

Sage for talking about God rather than Allah, you filthy infidel. Prove to me that Allah is the supreme power and that Jesus was the messiah.

>> No.3427996
File: 55 KB, 500x500, crocoduck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3427996

>>3427963
>a)We didn't evolve from apes, but rather we have a common ancestor with them.
And were is this common ancestor? Nowhere? I thought so. It's made up.
>b)It doesn't matter whether or not the thing we evolved from still exists, seeing as species generally split into herds, a single herd could be the ones with the mutations.
Unscientific conjecture with no evidence.
>2)If evolution is true, and it is, then every fossil is a transition. Go to a museum.
I'm talking about animals that are inbetween to kinds of animals. Evolution says these must exist but they don't.

>> No.3428009

>>3427996
I'm talking about animals that are inbetween two kinds of animal, the kind that have never, ever been found to exist.
Made a typo.

>> No.3428020

"hurr there was a common ancestor but we haven't found it yet but it totally exists trust us" is not an acceptable answer.
All so called transitional fossils have been proven as fakes. You evolutionists got nothing.

>> No.3428027

OP's picture: A>>3427996
ww, how cute. Christians asking that same tired old question and thinking that they made a point.

>And were is this common ancestor? Nowhere? I thought so. It's made up.

Evolution isn't a concept that was simply made up. God, Zeus, Horus, and Odin are made up. Learn the difference.

>> No.3428032

>>3428027
So where is this common ancestor? It's just as made up as the tooth fairy or boogeyman.
Hell, the place you're going, is real though.

>> No.3428050

>>3427983
God samefagged Allah.

>> No.3428052

>>3427996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Species_list
Enjoy, all specimens currently known. If you want to complain because it's 'only some bones and skulls' please know that LESS than what we have here is sufficient in a murder case. The evidence here is pretty clear. As long as there's no other way to explain the fossils, DNA similarities and chromosome fusing this is the general idea.

Conjecture? Are you denying species are commonly found in groups? Sure there's exceptions like panthers (which pay for it with next to no genetic diversity) but even those get together to mate. It's been observed in a great many species: they split in populations/herds/groups and if a beneficial mutation arises, it propagates through the group.

Define 'kind'. You couldn't last thread so I hope you have improved.

Here's a question to you; if God created every animal in much of its shape as it is today, how come new dog breeds are created all the time by us?

>> No.3428053

>>3428020
"How did the universe come to exist?"

"God did it. Believe me because I said so and fork over 10% of your wages to build up my church and help spread more ignorance and lies based on a book that was written by old men in the desert and was re-written, re-re-written, and re-re-re-written to suit the era, beliefs, and social structure of the environment of the person who did the revision."

Sorry, that answer is unacceptable.

>> No.3428056

>>3427870
I am a creationist and your arguments are bad.
1) Apes and humans allegedly evolved from a common ancient ancestor.
2) Because allegedly fossils are not likely to survive. To the evolutionist, something that looks like a cross between two species is proof. This is primarily a battle of presuppositions, and interpretations based on them.
3) Because it fits their worldview. They have plenty of evidence, much of the same evidence that is used for creation. It is a different interpretation of the evidence. Of course there is deceit in the evidence as well.

Like the geological column, they assume evolution and put fossils in order based on that assumption and not what is actually present, a jumble of fossils in no particular order. This arrangement fits the flood theory, yet they use circular logic and claim their assumption is then proof of their assumption (ignoring the first assumption).

Or the tree of life created from DNA similarities. They assume all species were of common decent, then find the best match in DNA for how it might have evolved along that assumption (ignoring the possibility of non-common decent and forcing a connection where there is no proof or necessity of one, other then their assumption). They then try and paint this as proof, when it is still just assumption.

Bottom line is this, creationists need not deny the mechanisms needed/supported by evolution. Whether they exist or not does not imply the evolutionary story of origins took place. I am comfortable saying life diverged via the mechanisms of evolution from many branches (kinds), and that they were created both male and female from the beginning.

>> No.3428057

>>3428020

I know this is a really bad troll, but what if IT'S FUCKING NOT.

Goddamn, that is scary. To think that people exist in the world that still believe that third-world shit sends shivers up AND down my spine.

>> No.3428060

>>3428020
>All so called transitional fossils have been proven as fakes.
>Source: my pastor

Haha, oh wow.

>> No.3428062

>>3428032
unless I am mistaken, Australopithecus is our common ancestor with modern apes

Captcha: evelove orbit

>> No.3428064

>>3428032
According to your religion, there is only one (or three if you want to get "technical") who knows for certain where I'm going and you, poor delusional anon, are not that person.

>> No.3428066

>>3428032
Prove it using scientific method. Otherwise, you're full of shit.

>> No.3428073

>>3427870
I'll make a deal with you. Give me an unambiguous definition of 'Kind' and I will produce any evidence you need.

>> No.3428077

1. hurrrr

2.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

>> No.3428078

>>3427996
>>3428032
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakalipithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouranopithecus

There's the last discovered common ancestors of the human/ape/chimpanzee split.

>> No.3428079

Guys,
you report,
you fucking sage,
you leave it alone.
Stop feeding the troll.
If it isn't a troll, let it believe we're not answering because we're so afraid and don't have answers. Stop caring about this shit, and maybe one day, this might become a place to actually have an intelligent conversation.

>> No.3428083

I keep hearing this bullshit about 'kinds' but when I ask for a definition no way José.

>>3428056
'Allegedly evolved'? Could you explain the genetic similarities, similar organ configuration and fused genome in another way please?

>To the evolutionist, something that looks like a cross between two species is proof.
No, a fossil which looks like a cross between 2 species BEFORE the second one even existed is proof. By the way, you can watch speciation in real time with fruit flies.

>> No.3428088

>>3428020
>Implying you've got better scientific evidence

>> No.3428089

>>3428079
>If it isn't a troll, let it believe we're not answering because we're so afraid and don't have answers
>let it believe we're not answering because we're so afraid and don't have answers

I hate it when people pull that shit.

>> No.3428092

>>3428053
The problem is not with saying God did it, but with your understanding of God. the term god is meaningless unless you give it meaning. If the meaning you give it is inconsistent with reality, then that god does not exist. The God of the bible is consistent with reality.

The universe was created out of the being of God (creatio ex deo). God's nature is the summation of all the axioms needed to describe reality, and account for our existence in the present. The energy that was used to create the universe always existed and is a finite 0% part of the actual amount that exists (infinite). Before the beginning of the universe there was not metaphysical nothing (out of nothing nothing comes, Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit, a metaphysical truth), there was what I would call everything, what we atm call quantum energy fluctuation. The attributes of God are clearly seen in nature, the element of God that most miss is the personal nature God had to have to set things in motion according to His libertarian free-will.

>> No.3428093

>>3428079
Naw. No one listens to anyone. Sage doesn't do shit either. Have some bump.

>> No.3428098

>Knowledge about evolution is not complete so you should believe my bronze-age theory about a magic sky man who poofed the earth into existance 6000 years ago or your soul or whatever will go to a fire lake

>> No.3428099

.

>> No.3428102

>>3428083
Common designer, are you really unable to grasp your own presuppositions and the arguments of the other side? Until you recognize that you have them you are nothing more then a blind man led by the blind.

>> No.3428108

>>3428092
God by definition is undefinable by us, so you happily call it a libertarian. Nice going, champ!
>The universe was created out of the being of God (creatio ex deo).
Nope, I created it when I facepalmed really really hard.

>> No.3428118

>>3428102
EXACT Definition of 'kind' or STFU.

>> No.3428136

>>3428102
Ah, a designer. While impossible to be certain it wasn't one, please note:
Urine tube shared with sperm tube
Waste disposal system shared with pleasure centre
Eating/drinking tube next to breathing tube (choking hazard)

If we did get designed, don't you think the designer could have done a better job? Ultimately abiogenesis could have been a designer. However, evolution happens in plain view and can (and has!) been observed by us. Your designer has zero proof.

>> No.3428155

>>3428102
The arguments of your side pretty much amount to 'we believe this so it is so' or 'our book says it, I believes it'. Not very convincing to me, seeing as how I am not a bronze age goatherder

>> No.3428159

>>3428108
How about species differential of the original created order.

The differential of kind nowadays is decided by common sense/intuition. Those animals that share close traits, such as familys.

>> No.3428167

>>3428136
That's not even getting into retroviruses, junk dna, and vestigial organs showing common ancestry.
Unless you want to argue that God copies and pastes his typos too. That's not even bringing the extensive and detailed fossil record of hominids.
And for anyone talking about the so called "lack" of transitional fossils, you need to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

>> No.3428176

>>3428159
You probably wanted to link to the post asking for a definition.
Intuition just doesn't cut it. Example: the hyena. It looks and acts very similar to a dog, yet is genetically closer to a cat.

>> No.3428186

>>3428102
The common design common designer fallacy has been thoroughly debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3yDOp8Dv8Y

>> No.3428188

>>3428186
It's very unlikely that we came about that way, but to debunk it? Not feasible.

>> No.3428189

>>3428155
Yes, however both sides are like that, your side just fails to recognize their own presuppositions.

I would be wrong to say both sides actually. Both sides present evidence based on their presuppositions, failing to under stand that each other are working with these differences. If you do not see the evidence presented by creationists as evidence, it is because you are blinded by your own presuppositions to the extent that you fail to look at it from their eyes.

You must put yourself into the other sides metaphysical framework to actually understand, or to produce meaningful interaction. This can be hard to do, since your idea of their position is likely overlaid with misrepresentations.

>> No.3428201

>>3428189
This is metaphysical bullshit that completely ignores the scientific method. You know, the framework we have used for every science thus far? If your 'evidence' does not fit in that framework, you cannot call it science.

Why is it that our experiments can be replicated and the replicated experiments will give the same results? Why is it that our results allow us to make theories which hold for new cases?
This isn't about 'two sides which are both right'. This is about one side being science, and one side being not.
And guess what, we're on /sci/ - Science & Math.

>> No.3428203

you can turn a sand worm into a fruit fly by altering its hox genes

if evolution were not true, i don't know how one can explain the interspecific DNA ranging from yeast to human

>> No.3428205

>>3428188
I mean using the "common design common designer" argument creationists shout in response to evidence for common descent.
That and you'd have to ignore the fossil and genetic records completely to make that argument in the first place.

>> No.3428218

One of my friends is extremely religious and a Christian.

I remember we would argue about evolution, so eventually we went on a road trip, and we ended up on my family's ranch in the midwest.

We went hiking and camping, and I knew that strewn all across our land were fossils, in many cases, literally laying on the surface of the ground of different types of land formations.

After seeing fossils that were just layed on the ground randomly, that obviously no one had intentionally placed there to trick him, I noticed a distinct change in the individual, and he's rarely if ever brought up the subject of evolution or the age of the earth since that time.

Seeing a shitload of ancient fossils literally just laying on the ground really fucked with his dogma.

>> No.3428230

>>3428218
The devil put the fossils there to try and lead him away from god, obviously.

>> No.3428253

>>3428201
All scientific inquiry and achievement fit in my framework, including the common Atheist worldview, mine overshadows this, which is why it is easy for me to think in such terms.

>Why is it that our experiments can be replicated and the replicated experiments will give the same results? Why is it that our results allow us to make theories which hold for new cases?This isn't about 'two sides which are both right'. This is about one side being science, and one side being not.
This is a straw-man. The natural world is fully accounted in my worldview, to put it in conflict with it is a straw-man.

>>3428203
Probably because all known life uses DNA with the same 4 letter alphabet.

>>3428205 see >>3428056
I already explained this, I do not ignore it.

>> No.3428264
File: 385 KB, 1280x720, 1307256920023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3428264

>>3428230
KILL THIS THREAD AT ONCE

>> No.3428286

1. saying we evolved from monkeys is a ridiculous statement without first mentioning which type of monkeys we evolved from, its a very general term its like saying all dogs are the same breed. we evolved from a certain type of monkeys that is not around anymore.

2. there are, we have similiar skelentons anyway.

3. im not sure exactly what you are refering to but an amoeba doesnt end up as an elephant without signigact stages and time inbetween

>> No.3428293

>>3428218
>2011
>believing in fossils

>> No.3428303

gj Mod

>> No.3428309

>>3428286
>having similarities=/=mean anything towards believing evolution

>> No.3428316

Why would the mods ban a thread discussing evolution? (ignoring that the poster was a troll)

>> No.3428335
File: 15 KB, 353x606, 1262170720319.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3428335

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Mods? On my /sci/?

>> No.3428344

>>3428316
No religion vs science threads is one of the rules of /sci/, and trolling is forbidden everywhere except for /b/.
Hard to believe that trolling is forbidden on /sci/, I know, but it's true.

>> No.3428345

>>3428316
because
>>3428230

how can you argue over something like this?

>> No.3428367

>>3428345
Except that the person who posted that was an evolutionist trolling the other-side by presenting a bad argument (straw-man).

>> No.3428385

>>3427870

>If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

Because evolution advances in a different manner depending on the location, climate, contact to different entities, and other environmental factors.

That is why humans from different locations of the world differ in their physiology and psychology.
That is also why in some locations humans developed, while in other chimpanzees developed.

>> No.3428397

MODS ARE GODS

>> No.3428398

>>3428385


we repeat those things 100 times a day
do you see any changes? Do these people EVER admit that they are wrong? No. They just throw everything you said into the trash and keep on going. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

>> No.3428423

>>3428253
I think you missed the post where he explained how "common design, common designer" falls apart when viewed under the light the genetic and fossil records that clearly show a nested hierarchy.
>>3428186
>>3428167

>> No.3428432

>>3428398
That is because these people are trolling, and you are still replying.

>> No.3428434

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw&feature=player_embedded

>> No.3428435

>>3428309
Looking the similarities is only part of it, the placement differences within the similarities. in genetics is what supports the nested hierarchy.

>> No.3428510

>>3427875
Then why do we have pitbulls?

>> No.3428834

>>3428397
you're jacking off right now, aren't you

>> No.3428860
File: 3 KB, 126x95, brilliant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3428860

>>3427870
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>> No.3428889
File: 7 KB, 170x213, 1297195165742.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3428889

>>3427870

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>> No.3428909
File: 335 KB, 864x594, Other 01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3428909

>>3427870

A religious troll banned on /sci/?

Ironically, this is the closest we'll ever get to proof of a higher power in the universe.

>> No.3429166
File: 6 KB, 191x234, yay!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429166

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>> No.3429176
File: 1.85 MB, 3466x2776, 1306258908455.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429176

>>3427870
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>> No.3429198
File: 38 KB, 466x311, katainen-kurkistaa..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429198

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>> No.3429209

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Suddenly, God seems much more likely.

>> No.3429210

I believe in Mod.

>> No.3429218

>>3429210
So, essentially, what you're trying to say is... MODS = GODS?

>> No.3429221

well done, mods.

>> No.3429228
File: 14 KB, 383x290, alan_davis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429228

the lord your MOD is with you

>> No.3429229

mods = fags

there are a lot more posts worse than this. this troll actually backed up his statements rather than doing blatant trolling (i.e., "atheists: 0; christians: 1")

>> No.3429230
File: 71 KB, 400x400, 35473_360425574702_527124702_4857594_6168423_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429230

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>> No.3429234

>>3429229
>this troll actually backed up his statements

Yea, with more obvious trolling. Don't be stupid.

>> No.3429239
File: 47 KB, 539x363, moray_eel_gbr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429239

THERE ARE MODS ON /SCI/?!

>> No.3429240
File: 79 KB, 360x239, LOL.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429240

>>3429229


He still broke the rules. Cry more.

>> No.3429430
File: 90 KB, 432x585, I like what Im Reading 01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429430

>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>> No.3429433
File: 21 KB, 400x324, 1308330502823.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429433

>dat based mod
mods = gods

>> No.3429438
File: 205 KB, 1024x768, 1287240161476.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429438

>>3429239
Yes, there are.

>> No.3429440

>>3429433

No. Mods = incredibly learnéd men.
This is /sci/ dammit.

>> No.3429453

<span class="math">{red}{(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)}[/spoiler]

>> No.3429467
File: 27 KB, 390x382, costanza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429467

>>3429229
>backed up his statements

>> No.3429468
File: 24 KB, 320x240, moray_eel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3429468

>>3429438

>> No.3429495

>>3429468
>>3429438
>>3429239
I laughed

>> No.3429499

>>3427870
1) Think of the modern ape as our distant cousin.
The ape we evolved from is long gone.
2) Transitional fossils? Elaborate. All of the fossil pictures I've seen are not drawn.
3) Macro-biology exists. Like that moth back in the Indrustrial Revolution who got darker because the lichens it hid among were covered in soot.

>> No.3429509

>>3428027
What do you mean evolution isn't made up? Darwin made it up.

>> No.3429516

>>3428056
Actually, no. The column is in a chronological order.
Brush up on earth science.

>> No.3429518

>>3429509
>Darwin made it up.
As inspired by actual observation of finches and such. And then verified by further observation.

>> No.3429525

>>3429509
No, he proposed the idea in a scientific way.
Scientists don't 'make up' things, they discover things.
Engineers and inventors 'make' things.