[ 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: 59 KB, 650x650, millionsofthese.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8417551 No.8417551 [Reply] [Original]

Hmmmm

>> No.8417553

>>8417551
Look at Africa

>> No.8417626

>>8417551
africa+genocide

>> No.8417636

>>8417551
Just because some of a particular organism evolved doesn't mean that all of them have to evolve aswell.

For instance, look at bacteria. Bacteria exposed to antibiotics multiple times usually become resistant while bacteria of the same species in areas that don't commonly use antibiotics don't have the resistance.

>> No.8417638

>>8417551
There are millions of crocodiles and millions of ducks, where is the golden crocoduck?

>> No.8417835

>>8417551
Fedora atheists BTFO

>> No.8417836

>>8417553
fpbp

>> No.8417860
File: 77 KB, 500x500, QB.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8417860

>>8417551
>There are millions of these

NO THERE ARE NOT.

We didn't evolved from any currently living species. We had common ancestor who extincted long time ago. Both humans and chimpanzees evolved in different way. Monkeys didn't suddenly stopped evolving while we evolved from them, this is not how evolution works.

>> No.8417866

>>8417860
Why would all the evolutionary steps become extinct?

>> No.8417867

>>8417866
Because you touch yourself at night.

>> No.8417880

>>8417866
Because evolution creates more suitable species. More suitable species reproduce more, gain more territory, food, power and essentially kill less suitable ones.
Both humans and chimpanzees were more suitable than our ancestor and all the steps, that's why we took all their territory, food and everything and they were forced to extinct. Humans and chimpanzees occupy different areas so we don't fight with each other. We all specialized in different things and doesn't bother each other.

>> No.8417941
File: 318 KB, 903x458, coke.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8417941

>>8417551

If Coca Cola came from water, how come there are millions of glasses of water and millions of bottles of Coca Cola, but no 1899 Hutchinson spring stopper Coca Cola?

>> No.8417949

>>8417866
>Why would all the evolutionary steps become extinct?
Becoming extinct is the rule. Remaining extant is the exception.

>> No.8418531

>>8417941
this

>> No.8418540

>>8417941
The only logical answer is that Coca Cola is a hoax perpetrated by communist new world order (((scientists))) trying to destroy America and everything it stands for. Checkmate, Coca Colaists BTFO yet again.

>> No.8418592

I know this thread is a shitpost but where are the fossils for the inbetween links? We can find all kinds but never the specific inbetween ones. Are we digging in the wrong places?

>> No.8418604

>>8417551
that's so dumb, we're the steps.

> where are the millions of these?
fucking dead, some of them became fossils

also, the image is wrong, we didn't evolve from a fucking chimpanzee

>> No.8418614

>>8418592
>where are the fossils for the inbetween links
AFAIR there most likely aren't any since fossilization
>requires just the right conditions
>takes a long time
>may not survive to be identifiable

take something like the T.Rex
how many fossils of them exist? Hundreds at best, most likely only a few dozen
how many of them had lived? Most likely thousands AT LEAST

>> No.8418650

>>8418592
ALL fossils are from in between species because ALL species are in between species.
In the most literal sense.

>> No.8418807

>>8418592
>never
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

>> No.8418820 [DELETED] 
File: 12 KB, 400x300, Fall.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8418820

>>8417551
Once again Western Science has failed to correctly answer life's burning questions, if we had an "African Science" department we could finally discover why biological ancestors did not evolve.

>> No.8418912
File: 236 KB, 709x944, neanderthal_vs__cro_magnon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8418912

>>8417551

We killed those bitch-ass cavemen and stole their shit.

We only left the monkeys alone cuz the don't got no good shit to steal

>> No.8418934

>>8418614
> thousands
is that your final answer?

>> No.8418937
File: 21 KB, 480x437, 1476746210285.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8418937

>>8417551

>> No.8418942

>>8418934
>thousands AT LEAST
I have no fucking clue how many there were
but there were most likely a LOT more than there are T.Rex fossils

If you have more info then please post it. I at least would be interested

>> No.8418991

>>8418942

Well, maybe I will have to eat my words (I didnt intend to be rude) because as you, I was only guessing. And animal that lived for some million years... 1000 seems like too little from my point of view.

But it may actually well be that their paleogenetic span (however it is called) was rather short

So I went into the wikipedia and found that average life was max 28 years, on one side, and that they lived during the Maastrichtian period, that spans for 6 million years...

This is absurd but though

Lets hypothesize only 10 tyranosaurus runned wild at the same time all over the world. A generous lifespan of 30 years. 6 million years. Total: 2 million individuals. Not that much.

I would rather keep with irrational counting I had done first, I didnt know how much (its a rare question) but a lot (one thousand is peanuts)

peace

>More than 50 specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex have been identified, some of which are nearly complete skeletons.
>Some scientists consider Tarbosaurus bataar from Asia to be a second Tyrannosaurus species while others maintain Tarbosaurus is a separate genus. Several other genera of North American tyrannosaurids have also been synonymized with Tyrannosaurus
>Histologic analysis of Tyrannosaurus rex bones showed LACM 28471 had aged only 2 years when it died, while Sue was 28 years old, an age which may have been close to the maximum for the species
>Over half of the known Tyrannosaurus rex specimens appear to have died within six years of reaching sexual maturity

>Tyrannosaurus lived during what is referred to as the Lancian faunal stage (Maastrichtian age) at the end of the Late Cretaceous. Tyrannosaurus ranged from Canada in the north to at least Texas and New Mexico in the south of Laramidia

>> No.8418992
File: 19 KB, 394x530, 2016-10-18 01_36_04-Late Cretaceous - Wikipedia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8418992

>>8418991

>> No.8419068

Really makes you think
That OP is retarded

>> No.8420011

>>8417551
Wow, interesting point. Reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

>> No.8420022

>>8420011
We must purge the Earth of the chimp. They are the only thing stopping us from spreading this evolution lie we hold so dear.

>> No.8420023

>>8420011
What is wrong with you?
>So that means it would have to have features of both.
[citation needed]

>> No.8420038

>>8420011
we didn't evolve from the modern chimp
humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor
it's as simple as that

>> No.8420048

>>8420038
If it's so common, why can't we find it?

czech m8

>> No.8420050

>>8420048
There's one posting in this thread right now

>> No.8420093
File: 224 KB, 1200x630, leslie-jones[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8420093

>>8417551
>So where are the millions of these?
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming ;)

>> No.8420156
File: 1.73 MB, 2000x1333, Lena-and-Rosie-Pula[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8420156

>>8417551
Missing link no longer missing

/thread

>> No.8420243

>>8420022
>>8420023
>>8420038
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

>> No.8420277

>>8420243
Show me any theory and "same evidence as us" different from theory of evolution that will explain where life come from, why do we have such a variety of species, why do new species are being created when environment change(Darwin's finches), why do we find fossils of common ancestors of various animals, what is the role of DNA and recombination, etc.

>> No.8420293

>>8420011
>The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both

What the fuck are you talking about? What do you think looks more like a human, a chimp or a rat? What do you think looks more like a chimp, a human or a rhino?

>> No.8420394

>>8420277
>>8420293
what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).

>> No.8420425

>>8420394
I guess because the usual "alternatives" are actually worse than the mainstream ones

Remember, for some Theory to replace the other it needs to
>fit the evidence like the old theory
>give explanations to what happens and
>predict things that the old theory couldn't

It's why Intelligent design isn't a theory. While it takes the evidence into account and explains them it doesn't actually provide predictions like Evolution does. And we rank Theories not by how good they make us look or how easy to understand they are, but by how well they explain and predict

A new theory is always a generalization of the previous theory. General/Special Relativity is a generalization of Newtonian mechanics, since at low speeds and masses they are indistinguishable with our measurement instruments and most likely will stay that way.

also:
>evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor
what has the first thing to do with the second one?
that's like asking why apples and pears exist if both have a common ancestor. Just because you share a common ancestor doesn't mean that only one of you can survive.

>> No.8420426

>>8418937
jaja

>> No.8420433

>>8420011
>>8420243
>>8420394
>The bait that keeps on baiting

>> No.8420453

>>8420394
>>8420277