/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8598577]

Is there any REAL evidence for evolution?

[Anonymous No.8598583]

The evidence for evolution exists within the fossil record.

[Anonymous No.8598586]

You seem like the guy who when presented with REAL evidence says "nah, i want REAL evidence".

[Anonymous No.8598591]

Explain this shit

[Anonymous No.8598594]

>>8598583
Cambrian Explosion
>>8598591
A chimp's face

[Anonymous No.8598598]

>>8598583
>we found bones of creatures like other creatures
>they must not be those creatures

[Anonymous No.8598600]

>>8598598
What you getting at.

[Anonymous No.8598603]

dachshund

[Anonymous No.8598604]

>>8598598
A t rex complete fossil is of what living animal then since according to you its just scientists bullshitting us? I can be certain you are gonna say a turkey.

[Anonymous No.8598605]

>>8598577
Why do christ brainlets always think it's binary

Like if you disprove evolution, BAM then God must be real and it must be the one depicted in the bible

If they examine Christianity on the same (and completely illogical desu) basis they examine evolution there is absolutely no way that they can remain as Christians

[Anonymous No.8598609]

>>8598600
He means people assume that just because something looks like another thing, they must be related.
>>8598603
Decrease in genetic information rather than increase. Evolution requires an increase

[Anonymous No.8598610]

>>8598605
Evolution is antithetical to the existence of God.

Speciation, however, is used in breeding. It's a different story

[Anonymous No.8598611]

>>8598605
>mentions religion
When did I mention that?

[Anonymous No.8598616]

>>8598610
>Speciation
Evolution is antithetical to God in the sense that it disproves the claims of mainstream Christianity (of course there are people who again "interpret" it in a different way kek), but what I mean is that when you disprove God, it isn't suddenly the proof to the existence of God
And if you criticise Bible the same way you do with evolution Christianity would be automatically eliminated

>>8598611
Pic related does

Also I thought you were mocking the christards, are you actually supporting that view, fucking kek

Or is it bait


Hmmmm

[Anonymous No.8598618]

>>8598609
Parsimony bitch.

[Anonymous No.8598619]

>>8598609
Dont use that information bollocks

[Anonymous No.8598624]

>>8598616

[Anonymous No.8598630]

>>8598577
You can't disprove evolution

[Anonymous No.8598636]

>>8598609
If theres regression,why wouldn't there be evolution?

[Anonymous No.8598644]

>>8598609
>Decrease in genetic information rather than increase.
and your reference for dachshunds having lost genes relative to wolves is...?

but here you go
>http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

[Anonymous No.8598650]

>>8598630
You can. There is no concrete evidence, only conjecture.

[Anonymous No.8598653]

>>8598650
And youre a faggot.

[Anonymous No.8598656]

>>8598577
We know that editing genes will produce real, observable changes in the organism.

Since this is proven (that genetic modification will alter an organism from it's "divine plan"), is it really a stretch to conclude that small, accumulated changes over time will do the exact same thing?

[Anonymous No.8598657]

>>8598609
>Decrease in genetic information rather than increase. Evolution requires an increase
mmmm no

[Anonymous No.8598733]

>>8598650
"Concrete evidence" can't even exist. It's all up to common sense and similarities.

[Anonymous No.8598750]

>>8598577

U can't know nuthin'

[Anonymous No.8598853]

>>8598656
>dogs with different variations=amoeba to man

[Anonymous No.8598880]

>>8598853
Better pic

[Anonymous No.8598888]

Evidence does not exist. Fossils only tell us humans appeared later than other species, and that other species have disappeared. Some have tried to believe monkey fossils which is a bit between today's monkey and human in shape are evidence. Except it isn't, it is just assumptions.

[Anonymous No.8598901]

>>8598609
That's the funniest pic I've seen in a while.

[Anonymous No.8598904]

>>8598853
If you say that one kind of dog canchange into another, then you should also believe that several such changes would lead to a dog becoming something like a dog but no longer a dog. And then several such changes leads to the dog-like species becoming something not like a dog at all. What exactly stops many changes from accumulating?

Many variations = aemoba to man

[Anonymous No.8598931]

>>8598904
>You use LOGIC
>It's not very effective

[Anonymous No.8598934]

>>8598904
But dogs are a kind unto themselves. A dog can't produce a cat, fish can't produce birds, and frogs can't turn into princes

[Anonymous No.8598942]

>>8598934
>But dogs are a kind unto themselves. A dog can't produce a cat, fish can't produce birds, and frogs can't turn into princes

Are you being serious right now? I can't tell, some people would say this and be absolutely serious.

[Anonymous No.8598946]

>>8598577
>fibonacci spirals
>god is real because a mathematical ratio exists

really makes you think

[Anonymous No.8598951]

>>8598934
And as I just explained to you, nothing is producing anything much different from anything else. It's the accumulation of small changes over many genetatiobs that leads to "macroevolution." You are treating it as if the change id's instantaneous or only one change. But puddles were not created after one generation either.

And your bait is too obvious. If you're not going to take trolling seriously then don't try at all. I'm disappointed in you.

[Anonymous No.8598955]

>>8598951
You assume the earth has been around for long enough for such changes to accumulate.

[Anonymous No.8598956]

>humans have natural instinct to turn our ears towards sounds despite losing the musculature to do so through evolution
>hurrdurr God put it there to test us!

[Anonymous No.8598963]

>>8598955
Indeed and that assumption goes into faith. Funny how popular religion was for so long. So, so long. And then all of a sudden, we are the result of a chaotic theory, not a benevolent creator. When the scientific progress is based on God's nonexistence, it's not scientific progress.

[Anonymous No.8599001]

>>8598963
You fundamentally misunderstand science if you think it's in any way capable of answering inherently metaphysical questions about the existence of gods.

[Anonymous No.8599017]

>>8599001
That's not what I said. I do think that science or material understandings of the universe, should stay as far as possible away from contradicting The Bible. The heliocentric universe theory was against the Church, but evolution? That shit is against the Bible. You should think twice before you make attempts to reduce something repeated over and over in The Koran and stated in the beginning of Genesis to nothing.

[Anonymous No.8599049]

>>8599017
The Bible is a book. That's it, full stop. The claims it makes, whatever they may be, that fall within the realm of the falsifiable, do not enjoy a privileged position from which they are immune to reasoned discourse.

[Anonymous No.8599057]

>>8598934
>But dogs are a kind unto themselves
No they are not. "Kind" has no clear definition. And thus no real meaning.

Here's a list to choose from:
Kingdom
Phylum
Clade
Class
Order
Suborder
Family
Genus
Species
Subspecies

[Anonymous No.8599061]

>>8598577
Is there any real evidence that you aren't a faggot?

[Anonymous No.8599078]

This thread is literally on par with yesterday's flat earth thread

Stupid op being a stupid faggot and it's already 40 posts in

[Anonymous No.8599081]

>>8598934
>kind

Go sell some more cyanide to cancer patients
Fuck off Kent hovind

[Anonymous No.8599086]

>>8598610
I don't see that, God could just have set the parameters right so that Earth and life can develop

[Anonymous No.8599090]

>>8599086
Do you have have any evidence for that?

[Anonymous No.8599091]

>>8598955
Where did I assume that? But anyway you just admitted that microevolution leads to macroevolution. I rest my case.

[Anonymous No.8599092]

>>8599090
He means that evolution is not necessarily antithetical to God

[Anonymous No.8599123]

>>8598955
You think 4 billion years isn't enough?

[Anonymous No.8599126]

>>8598577
You're right, we should give up evolution and return to the traditional belief of constant spontaneous generation.

[Anonymous No.8599137]

>>8598577
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[Anonymous No.8599165]

Evolution of the domestication of the dog. Before modern humans, there was no such thing as a samoyed or husky. They were selectively bred (environmental pressure) for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.8599168]

>>8599165

[BenI No.8599171]

It seems likely that no one can prove anything, especially by or to the people who are closed-minded, unable to learn, to evolve.

Further, it seems likely that proof can never exist: only acceptance of what likely is. Our only hope might be reaching a point in a spiritual journey where we are content, sustained and happy and proof is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.8599178]

>>8599168
I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.8599180]

>>8598880
>cnidarian turns into ecdysozoan
>ecdysozoan turns into chordate

[Anonymous No.8599182]

>>8598577
Yes. It's called "growing resistance to anti biotics" and it's out to kill you.

[Anonymous No.8599184]

>>8599168
>picture of artificial selection
>labeled natural selection

[Anonymous No.8599186]

>>8598853
>>8598880
>>8598934
what color is the text in the bottom of this image?

[Anonymous No.8599187]

>>8599178
You have to be properly brain washed by sunday school first

[Anonymous No.8599192]

>>8599186
Each of the lines were created, they didn't just come together from a jumble of letters.

[Anonymous No.8599195]

>>8599192

[Anonymous No.8599202]

>>8599168
>natural selection
Kek

[Anonymous No.8599206]

>>8598609

The spork really is the pinnacle of fork evolution.

[Anonymous No.8599221]

no but evolution is the best most logically coherent framework to explain the history of nature and even human behaviour.

[Anonymous No.8599239]

>>8599195
>>8599221

[Anonymous No.8599261]

>>8599057
Those terms are taxonomic classifications that have no clear definition and thus no real meaning.

Here is a slightly more stable list to choose from:
Species

And even this is arbitrary to some extent because delineating when something is an isolated reproductive group (Or just genetically distant enough where asexual organisms are concerned) is not always possible or absolute.

[Anonymous No.8599270]

>>8599168
That's artificial selection you baiting queefer

[Anonymous No.8599568]

>>8598577
Where is the trail of kangeroo skeletons from Mt Ararat to Australia, creationists?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc

[Anonymous No.8599582]

Reminds me...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI

[Anonymous No.8599587]

>>8599192
r u b8

bcos noone should be that stoopid

[Anonymous No.8599805]

See for yourself.

>in b4 petri dish evolution doesn't count

[Anonymous No.8599807]

>>8598577
GO BACK TO /POL/

[Anonymous No.8599809]

>>8599805
Is it still bacteria?

[Anonymous No.8599851]

>>8599809
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

it's E.Coli evolving resistance to increasing strengths of anti-biotic. You can see exact location where mutant bacteria who've randomly gained resistance start growing. It's interesting because the most resistant bacteria isn't always the most prolific. Some bacteria spread, not through resistance, but through rapid reproduction. They grow fast, and die fast in the anti-biotics. While others grow very very slowly, but have a strong resistance to the anti-biotics. It demonstrates how evolution can generate different strategies or solutions to a problem.

[Anonymous No.8599892]

>>8598577
>Is there any REAL evidence for evolution?
evolutionary algorithms work

[Anonymous No.8600112]

>>8599851
very interesting post that will sadly be ignored by proofs who would rather shit post about religion on a science board.

i appreciate the post though anon, even if most won't

[Anonymous No.8600150]

>>8599809
evolution wouldn't allow one thing to turn into another thing entirely, if a cat turned into a frog it would be evidence AGAINST evolution if anything.

If you want to see the big changes evolution can make, take a look at whale evolution and the various proofs for it that would only exist if evolution were true.

[Anonymous No.8600171]

>>8598577
In religious terms I prefer evolution to creationism simply because I do not care for the idea that G-d is insane. It says that G-d really likes making tapeworms for example. A couple hundred species, many of which require a microscope to tell them apart. Each and every microscopic difference was personally designed by G-d. And then G-d started on pinworms. And roundworms. And hundreds of other parasites. Also, G-d really likes designing ants. And beetles.

Here in Washington State there is an animal called the mountain beaver. There is a species of flea found on it that is unique to that animal. It is the largest species of flea yet found. This flea is large enough to have fleas of its own as parasites. These fleas can have mites as parasites, which can have bacteria as parasites. G-d did that/ Really? Are you sure you are comfortable with that concept. In before "G-d works in mysterious ways".

[Anonymous No.8600198]

>>8598577

I immediately assume you are a troll.


Yet, for onlookers, herbicides and pesticides need to continuously be revamped to fight against evolving pests and weeds.

[Anonymous No.8600283]

>>8598942
Yes, that's exactly how creationists think.

[Anonymous No.8600346]

>>8598611
...when your postpic mentions "the Creationist viewpoint".
Selective memory much?

[Anonymous No.8600395]

>>8599809
You should know that we can turn one celled organisms into multicellular structures via artificial selection

http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-start-for-multicellular-life-1.9810

[Anonymous No.8600399]

>>8598616
No Its not - I've read though YLT and I cant say it ever says that evolution is wrong.

Its incredibly vague about what stuff looks like really...

[Anonymous No.8600402]

>>8598609
>that image
Fucking great.

[Anonymous No.8600408]

>>8598609
> Dosnt take into factor the evolution from wood into stone into plastic
> Plastic sporks evolved from steel sporks that evolved from stone sporks that evolved from wood sporks.
> Wood sporks, spoons and forks came from a common ancestor
> Knifes were somewhat related - but not directly - only due to habitat.

Source- b.p.h.d. in Utensilatinitustism

[Anonymous No.8600411]

>>8598942
When two fish fuck and make a cat I will give you $20 bucks

When two dogs fuck, and make a new kinda dog - or when two cats fuck and make a new kinda cat you give me $20

[Anonymous No.8600415]

>>8599184
Thats the joke

[Anonymous No.8600432]

>>8598610
'God' could just be the thing that constructed the laws of the universe. Now he's sitting back snorting cocaine and fucking bookers.

[Anonymous No.8600446]

But the fossil record only gives us a limited selection of remains: atheist creatures did not bury their dead.

[Anonymous No.8600510]

>>8598577
> third panel
How exactly is Mt. St. Helens inherently evidence for creationism?

[Anonymous No.8600511]

>>8600510
Everything is an evidence for creationism if you think hard enough

[Anonymous No.8600527]

>>8598609

This image made me laugh pretty hard. Great post.

[Anonymous No.8600532]

>>8598577
low b8

[Anonymous No.8600542]

Micro vs macro evolution brainlets are embarrassing.

How can you not see that a series of "micro" evolutions can lead to "macro" evolution, over millions of years?

Fucking "micro" evolution doesn't even take that long either, the house sparrow was introduced to north america in 1852 and, based on their geographical location, they've evolved to withstand their environment better.

I bet there's even better examples out there, I've just found that within a minute.

[Anonymous No.8600543]

>>8599582
>that gif

[Anonymous No.8600936]

>>8600510
>lava dome forms within a year or two
>scientist dates the dome
>"millions of years"
>shows dating methods don't work
>was chastised for it

[Anonymous No.8600940]

>>8600542
Are they still like the creature they came from? Did that sparrow give rise to an albatross, cassowary, or bird of paradise?

[Anonymous No.8600947]

>>8600511
Keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous No.8600965]

>>8600940

What don't you understand about time scales?

[Anonymous No.8600979]

>>8600171
>Also, G-d really likes designing ants.
Whats wrong with that?
There's literally a chapter about ants in the Koran.

[Anonymous No.8600990]

>>8600112
>sadly be ignored by proofs

This is why I posted it. I was testing to see what percentage of people in this thread were anti-science and how many were purposely being contrarily or accidentally contrariety. (aka retards)

It would seem that peoples ability to ignore fact when it's literally in their face presented in a visual format that's both striking and interesting is quite high. In fact I'd say their ability to ignore truth has become a meme. At first is a meme, (just a joke) but then spreads like a meme infecting people with stupidity. I have to wonder if this act of a meme becoming a political idea is accidental or intentional. If it's intentional it means memes have been weaponed. It means someone created this "deny all proof of everything" meme in order to make people stupid. It means 4chan has literally become a new battle ground and memes are the new weapons governments are using to attack.
This is alarming.

[Anonymous No.8600992]

>>8600965
I understand that they occur when no one can see them save for you.

[Anonymous No.8600997]

>>8599851

[Anonymous No.8601002]

>>8600990
It also means most people in this thread are working for Russia, weather they know it or not.

[Anonymous No.8601156]

>>8600510
muh catastrophism

>>8600940
>lepidosaur turns into archosaur
would it literally kill creationists to get the sequence/heredity right that they're mocking?

>>8600992
>things only exist if I can see them
most people grow out of this around the age of two

>>8600997
this shows a really imbecilic misunderstanding of how antibiotic resistance works.
antibiotics target important enzymes. resistance comes about either through an alteration of the enzyme's shape (such that it retains its function but no longer interacts as strongly with the antibiotic) or through the production of a different enzyme which degrades the antibiotic. bacteria don't just LOSE vital enzymes; that would be a lethal mutation (basically, "let me chop off my head so that that guy can't shoot me in the face").
pretty sure the guy who draws those Baloney Detector comics is a literal retard or something.

[Anonymous No.8601166]

>>8600992
Why the fuck would you put micro, the one that should be read first, to the right panel

[Anonymous No.8601173]

>>8599057
>clade
I'm pretty sure a clade is just any grouping of organisms, it's not a reference to a particular hierarchical level. for example, "Mammal" is a clade and "Primate" is a clade subsumed by that clade.

[Anonymous No.8601187]

>>8598577
Not your thread.

[Anonymous No.8601394]

>>8601173
A clade is a group of organisms that have a common ancestor and all it's lineal descendants.

[Anonymous No.8601410]

>>8598609
>Evolution requires an increase

And where is that written? Mutation can be insertion, deletion, SNP, MNP etc etc. Evolution requires alteration, not addition.
Case and point would be the loss of the duffy antigen in populations of sub saharan africans imparting resistance to Vivax malaria. That would be a beneficial deletion leading to increased survival rates which is evolution by natural selection in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.8601412]

>>8600997
I don't get the point of the hot dog at the end of each of these comics.

[Anonymous No.8601466]

>>8601412
It's baloney, as in comedically false.

[Anonymous No.8601478]

>>8598609
>evolution reqiures increase
wtf no, thats not what evolution is about.

[Anonymous No.8601490]

>>8601410
this.
gud to know not all uninformed here.

[Anonymous No.8601496]

>>8601410
H tries to imply that if it is only reduction that doesn't prove evolution, as in g*d could've created all species, and they are gradually losing stuff

Which is not correct desu, we can make bacteria develop completely new systems to break down substances, or give lizards new organs and shit

[Anonymous No.8601512]

>>8600112
>sadly be ignored by proofs
Is this a meme? Anyone who demands proof then ignores proof when it's presented and demands even more.

Evolution proofers, Flat earth proofers, Vaccine proofers, Global warming proofers, Holocaust proofers
Jesus christ I didn't realize there were so many. This shit is almost an epidemic.

[Anonymous No.8601733]

>>8599239
wtf is this even supposed to mean

[Anonymous No.8601749]

>>8601512
>thinking evolution proofer is in the same tier as those others
lel

[Anonymous No.8601795]

>>8600997

I don't know maaaan. The ability to live inside the world's most widely distributed land animal without fear of being attacked by their defenses would be a pretty good ability to have.

[Anonymous No.8601834]

>>8601749
If the glove fits.
We could break down the patterns of behavior in common if you want to have an actual debate about it.

[Anonymous No.8601874]

>>8601733
It means that with naturalistic evolution, morality goes out the window. It's no longer considered objective, but subjective. What is right to one person is wrong to another, and you can't do anything about it.

[Anonymous No.8601879]

>>8601834
Evolution is a theory, numbnuts.

We're talking definition wise here. Objectively. There is not debating the fact that only one of those is a theory.

[Anonymous No.8601886]

>>8601879

[Anonymous No.8601906]

>>8601874
but isn't that obvious?

[Anonymous No.8601912]

>>8598577

[Anonymous No.8602007]

>>8600510

Publicity stunt by a creationist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

[Anonymous No.8602014]

>>8601886
>kinds
kys

[Anonymous No.8602025]

>>8599180
What a valuable major you have!

[Anonymous No.8602043]

>>8601466
Ahh, I forgot that baloney came in tube form.

[Anonymous No.8602052]

>>8601874
The human species wouldn't thrive the way we do without empathy to form social groups that help each other survive. Morality isn't an argument for the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.8602091]

>>8602007
More like a dissent from the cult.
http://creationwiki.org/K-Ar_dating_gives_inaccurate_results_for_modern_volcanic_rocks_(Talk.Origins)

[Anonymous No.8602104]

>>8602052
Like chimps?

[Anonymous No.8602225]

>>8598577
At this point, /sci/ should be renamed to /fucc/ (Flat Earth, Uni threads, Creationism and Climate change) to truly reflect 95% of the current content (i.e. everything but science & math). Now fuck off, subhuman.

[Anonymous No.8603039]

>>8598880
Why dogs -___- that's not evolution

[Anonymous No.8603049]

>>8602225
>again, classifying the debate of evolution with a flat earth theory
Listen, nothing revolutionary is going on here. Darwin's theory is relatively new, academically as well. It should be under heavy, heavy fire right now.

[Anonymous No.8603057]

>>8603049
actually it's one of the oldest theories still standing in science, 200 years is a long time to go without being superseded by another theory. To deny evolution is to deny the entirety of biology, paleontology, and genetics.

[Anonymous No.8603061]

>>8598577
Basically all of the medicine of the last 100 years is based on evolution. If it were bullshit, then non of that shit would work.

[Anonymous No.8603065]

>>8599809
LOL btfo

I'm actually starting to doubt this "theory"

[Anonymous No.8603079]

>>8603049

Why is herbicide and pesticide resistance a thing?

The same poison should work on all mosquitos and weeds, no? Why would it stop working over time?

Could it be that mosquitos and weeds are evolving?...

[Anonymous No.8603081]

>>8600411
>When two fish fuck and make a cat I will give you $20 bucks

When two fish fuck to make a cat its called a Catfish.

[Anonymous No.8603087]

>>8603081
Underrated post.

[Anonymous No.8603109]

>>8600990
It takes a while for people to digest new information. I'm a former science denier. It's takes months of effort to change these kind of beliefs.

Just look at climate alarmists that won't admit things aren't that bad. It's the same stubbornness, they just appear more intelligent by coincidence.

[Anonymous No.8603130]

>>8601512
The only stupid theory there is the flat earth one, which is really an extension of the moon landing conspiracy.

It's largely political too. It's easy for people to take skepticism too far. The government does lie though do its understandable. Same goes for global warming. All gore and other alarmists make people dismiss the entire thing.

It's just human nature man.

[Anonymous No.8603139]

>>8603079
Killing all the weakest mosquitoes isn't evolution though.

[Anonymous No.8603182]

>>8603139
Killing all the weakest mosquitoes is literally evolution.

[Anonymous No.8603229]

>>8599086
Creationist authorities are VERY keen to dismiss this, favoring adam and eve. If their following started considering that god's methods were not direct creation, that opens the door to critical thought.

[Anonymous No.8603250]

>>8599239
This is actually pretty good. It's true, evolution is not guided by morality at all. It often produces things that we consider horrible simply because they can reproduce well, that's just a fact. If we project our values onto nature, nature won't make a lot of sense. That doesn't mean we should stop talking about ethics, just that it doesn't have any explanatory power in the field of biology.

[Anonymous No.8603253]

>>8598610
Evolution isn't antithetical to the existence of God unless you are some fucking hick-bred hillbilly protestant scum who is going to Hell anyways.

The official stance of the Catholic (correct) church is that evolution is a mechanism by which God created life. The creation story is interpreted as an allegory not a one to one truth.

Fucking Protestants, you are all going to burn in Hell.

[Anonymous No.8603300]

>>8603253
>Fucking Protestants, you are all going to burn in Hell.
>wishing other human being to live eternally while being tortured for all eternally
>claim atheists have no morals

I'm not atheist (agnostic) but this right here is why I can never ever fucking trust religion. It's all do no harm to others, unless they disagree with you on some moral grounds then torture them, burn them alive bodies, and salt their corpses, in the name of god.

Also, the concept of religion and god has changed drastically over time. You could even say it has evolved. Or even say evolution created god, not god created evolution.

[Anonymous No.8603313]

>>8603253
Evolution is, however, a fallacious theory with no concrete evidence.

[Anonymous No.8603325]

>>8603313
0/10

[Anonymous No.8603336]

>>8601156
>pretty sure the guy who draws those Baloney Detector comics is a literal retard or something

He draws them for borderline retards who don't have a clue about what your explanation means. He's providing a technical-sounding explanation that will get hillbillies a-noddin', because they'll then figure he knows what he's talking about. They'll never even dream of looking into his "refutation" themselves.

I notice OP is using a similar tactic, by not challenging anyone on this thread with any expertise, only cherry-picking the dissenters.

[Anonymous No.8603352]

>>8603336
It's misinformation and propaganda techniques. There's an actual guide book for how do do this written by Hitler himself. People who use such techniques don't care about science or truth. They only care about spreading their ideas. AKA brainwashing.
OP is literally trying to brainwash people of /sci/, weather he knows it or not. It's possible he's been brainwashed with excessive propaganda into doing this himself.

[Anonymous No.8603358]

Vestigial traits.

[Anonymous No.8603384]

>>8603352
https://alwaysproventrue.com/2012/05/17/creationists-have-fossils-evolutionists-have-cartoons/amp/
We have facts, you have fiction.

[Anonymous No.8603422]

>>8598610
actual evolution mirrors His creation as life, which arises from the universe as if from nowhere and goes on to assume infinite forms...I cannot wait until God cleanses the Earth of creationist heathens

[Anonymous No.8603435]

>>8603384

"Here's a photo of a fly and a gecko preserved in amber that superficially resemble modern flies and geckos. This disproves evolution."

"What's amber?"

"Fossilized tree sap."

"And how long does it take for tree sap to turn into amber? I have a geologist's phone number handy, if that helps."

(crickets chirping)

[Anonymous No.8603498]

>>8603422
It's not in the Bible.

A spherical world isn't, which is why it's perfectly fine ti expand upon our ideas of physics, but creation necessitates no macro evolution.

[Anonymous No.8603520]

>>8603384
I'm honestly curious if the guy who drew that actually thinks Pakicetus "evolved to live on the land" (as opposed to being a basal whale from before whales evolved a marine life habit).

[Anonymous No.8603534]

>>8603057
>>8603061
Literally this.

Evolution, like gravity, occurs constantly in our world and in an observable and testable fashion. The data gained from those observations and tests are then compiled into a Theory that purports to explain it. It's possible to disagree with points about evolutionary theory - lord knows those evo-bios get fucking testy about their pet specializations (e.g. it's controversial to some 'scientists' that birds are dinosaurs) or disagree about whether or not parsimony is the best method to construct cladograms (it's often not) or simply don't have the information needed to make a conclusion (the testudinidae polytomy).

These are what actual debates in the field look like. But it's possible you'll notice that these valid scientific disagreements and Twitter wars are all picking at different theoretical interpretations, NOT whether or not evolution is real.

People knew evolution was real before Darwin was even born. He just quantified it and founded the theory explaining it. Just like Newton didn't invent gravity, he just measured it and wrote his observations in a book. Like evolutionary theory, gravitational theory has its own set of academic fights going on within it - but you'll notice that no sane individual actually questions whether it's real or not.

At the end of the day, if evolutionary theory is erroneous - and mind you, there are literal mountains of evidence indicating the contrary - then the field of biology, indeed all of the life sciences just falls the fuck apart and ceases to make sense.

[Anonymous No.8603540]

>>8603534
Except evolution is much more recent than physics you idiot. Look up what you're talking about before you talk about it fuckface sometimes I wonder if you even have a clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.8603554]

>>8603540

>1687: PNPM published
>1859: OtOOS published

Right, you're right, how could I not have seen how these dates somehow demolish every one of my points which you didn't even have to address in order to rebuke!

Wait....no, I still don't get it. Explain that one again.

[Anonymous No.8603556]

>>8603540
listen here fucko, our understanding of physics has changed fundamentally in the past century. evolutionary theory hasn't changed nearly as drastically.

[Anonymous No.8603558]

>>8603554
Right, and how about the history of Physics. You aren't very smart are you? Physics predates Christ.

You are nothing. Absolutely a retarded waste of time talking about how all of your precious life sciences fall back on one stupid unprovable theory.

[Anonymous No.8603568]

>>8603558
>unprovable theory
t. person who obviously doesn't understand the scientific method and wants to make that fact painfully obvious.

[Anonymous No.8603569]

>>8603558

>moving the goalposts

Please, dear, I was referring to modern gravitational theory (not ~physics~ in the grand sense) which as >>8603558 has pointed out has changed drastically as modern science allows it to elaborate and - dare I say - evolve. Evolutionary theory has changed in lesser, yet not insignificant ways - the applications of modern computing techniques has ushered in a revolution in the field of phylogenetics. But where our friend is incorrect is in the assumption that physics as we know it somehow predates Christ.

I mean sure, some Athenian pedarasts may have loosely articulated a theory based on things that superficially resemble modern conclusions - Democritus and the atom and so on - but if this is evidence for the academic field of physics predating Christ, then you must admit that evolutionary theory also predates Christ after reading the following Aristotle quote:

"So what hinders the anatomy from having this merely accidental relation in nature? Wheresoever, therefore, all things together happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been spontaneously constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish."

Natural selection, as articulated by one of those pedarasts I'm assuming you're alluding to.

[Anonymous No.8603572]

>>8603540
>>8603558
kek you're literally a brainlet who has failed his classes in elementary school

not only you completely missed his point, your perpective is so naive and your knowledge is so lacking i doubt that you are any older than 13

if you are older, than that probably means you are mentally challenged

[Anonymous No.8603598]

Yes, there's a lot of evidence for evolution, such as our vestigial tailbone, and the appendix. And that's just two examples in one species at the current time in history, among the millions of other pieces of evidence.

[Anonymous No.8603605]

It took 170 posts this time around, but I think the creationist cult has been blown the fuck out yet again. Good job lads.

[Anonymous No.8603613]

>>8603605
>blown the fuck out

[Anonymous No.8603617]

>>8603613

Evidence for my reply. A meme - an irrelevant straw man at that - is posted instead of a refutation of the capital-f Facts.

[Anonymous No.8603621]

>>8603435
I don't get it.
I mean I genuinely don't get it.
Can someone explain?

[Anonymous No.8603629]

>>8599805
Wait, what am I looking at?
What's happening here?

[Anonymous No.8603632]

>>8603629

"Wild-type" E. coli at the left and right edges. Each section leading in is a progressively more potent dose of antibiotics in their agar. As natural selection preserves the individuals able to withstand the antibiotic dosage, they perpetuate their genes and allow the bacteria to spread into the once prohibitively poisonous agar and continue eating and breeding.

In short, natural selection.

[Anonymous No.8603640]

>>8603632
Thanks, Anon.

[Anonymous No.8604294]

>trusting phenomena over noumena

You're looking the wrong way.

[Anonymous No.8604324]

>>8603569
That quote literally in no way describes evolution. You are a retard and I hope no one lets you near a pen and paper.

[Anonymous No.8604337]

>>8603613
>Watched the Bill Nye debate
>That straw man comic happened and it was actually the other way around

Kek

[Anonymous No.8604350]

>>8598619
>Wah you're not playing by the rules
The only meaningful thing DNA is is information.

[Anonymous No.8604366]

>>8598616
>it disproves the claims of mainstream Christianity
>Christians disagree
>they're wrong tho kek
Apparently people are just as retarded here as on any other board.

[Anonymous No.8604376]

>>8598605
>christ brainlets

More like prottie brainlets

>why

If you accept heretic nonsense like Protestantism you are going to accept other kinds of nonsense too

[Anonymous No.8604384]

>>8598650
All of science's conclusions are probabilistic. For evolution, we are almost 100% certain that it has occurred, since nothing has shown it to be false so far.

[Anonymous No.8604392]

>>8603621
>hey, this fossilized fly and lizard look kinda like their modern homologs
>they haven't changed at all, therefore evolution didn't happen to them
>they've been the same since the world was created back in 4004 B.C.
>>except it takes about three MILLION years for copal to turn into amber
>*crickets*

it's really just a joke on new earth creationists, but practically all vocal creationists come back to that eventually.

>>8603613
>>8604337
>hey guise what if
>what if we say that WE have evidence to support our claims
>and THEY don't!
>maybe it'll make people pay attention to us?

[Anonymous No.8604414]

Are you that stupid to not understand it was referring to the people who change every bit of bible according to their "interpretation" because it fits the contemporary science and culture?

[Anonymous No.8604420]

>>8604366
this 4 u
>>8604414

[Anonymous No.8604430]

>>8603253
>The official stance of the Catholic (correct) church is that evolution is a mechanism by which God created life. The creation story is interpreted as an allegory not a one to one truth.

There is no official stance about evolution, only that both evolution and creationism are theologically compatible with Genesis and it's up to science to decide which one is true.

[Anonymous No.8604545]

>>8604324

Actually, if you'll wipe the tears out of your eyes and re-read it, you'll find that natural selection - which works not necessarily by mutation or chance, but the preservation and accumulation of more fit phenotypes over thousands of generations - is described by Aristotle as an "internal spontaneity", causing those animals who lacked such fit traits "perish, and still perish".

Horse, water.

Drink up.

[Anonymous No.8604617]

>>8603253
Everyone know that magic sky fairy has blue wings, not purple. You damn purple wing believer will be sorry when the sky fairy sticks his wand in your ass.

[Anonymous No.8604622]

>>8598577
>Is there any REAL evidence for evolution?

DNA evidence is pretty irrefutable. Creationists always ignore DNA.

[Anonymous No.8604676]

>>8600171
Maybe you should do some reading on religons, clearly you don't know much about the commonly accepted attributes of God in most religions. "God works in mysterious ways" is a perfectly reasonable explication for a being that we simply can't comprehend. I suggest keeping an open mind to the possibility that both science and religion/spirituality can co-exist.

[Anonymous No.8604733]

>>8600947
Why does the scientist look kind of evil there?

[Anonymous No.8604784]

>>8604676

Hand-waving intellectual laziness. Why do you circlejerk about the thrill of being ignorant, even going as far as to assign spiritual significance to it?

[Anonymous No.8604788]

>>8604545
that doesn't follow from the quote. "internal spontaneity" seems to refer most closely to the chance throwing-together of various traits and parts. there's no allusion to inheritance or descent with modification; all he's saying is that things whose traits make them well-suited to their environment persist, and those whose traits do not instead perish.

[Anonymous No.8604797]

>>8598577
>in the evidence pile
>abstract thought
>conceptual thinking
>mt. St. Helens
>Fibonacci spirals

What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.8604863]

>>8604788

>things whose traits make them well-suited to their environment persist, and those whose traits do not instead perish.

"these were preserved" is the most important part of the quote. When ecological pressures cause unfit traits to perish, the fit traits are preserved. Regardless of where you think the original suite of traits come from - an "internal spontaneity", or god, or what-have-you - the traits most suited to their environment are preserved or destroyed by the pressures of each environment.

That's the process of natural selection.

Bitch.

[Anonymous No.8604879]

>>8604350
Because to everyone who knows about DNA, RNA, Ribosomes and Proteins and their enzymatic function talking about increasing and decreasing information in DNA is kind of pointless.

[Anonymous No.8604886]

Heh, you fucking ""scientists"" are so dumb. show me a chimp pulling out of its vagina a human baby? You can't? Thought so.

[Anonymous No.8604949]

>>8604622
Just because a Porsche and a Gremlin have similar parts doesn't mean they evolved from a common tetrarotational ancestor.

[Anonymous No.8604956]

>>8604949
Actually...

[Anonymous No.8604965]

>>8604797
>abstract thought
>conceptual thinking
Such things are o sophisticated and complicated to have arisen by mere tria and error.
>Mt St Helens
The lava dome was dated at around a million years old despite being only a few years old. The man who displayed his findings was ousted as a heretic.
>fibonacci spirals
Again, chance can't make such precise calculations.

[Anonymous No.8604981]

>>8604956
Give credit where credit is due.

[Anonymous No.8604984]

>>8604965
>Such things are o sophisticated and complicated to have arisen by mere tria and error
Why are they too complicated
>Again, chance can't make such precise calculations.
Does chance calculate? Why can't Fibonacci spiral be formed by normal evolutionary mechanisms? Water doesn't need to calculate to form spheres in 0g. Why is it called precise while the outline very roughly covers the supposed borders?

[Anonymous No.8604995]

>>8604984

[Anonymous No.8604999]

>>8604965
You have any idea how genetic algorithms and genetic programming works? simply put, you take a populaton of completely random solutions to whatever problem you are facing, and of course almost always 100% of them fail, but some are closer to the correct solution then others... so then you kill half of them (with higher probability of killing the bad ones) and cross the genes of the solutions at random points with some very small chance of mutating some of the parts. You end up with the same sized population of still pretty random solutions, but now, these individuals are very likely to share the "best" parts of the "best" creatures. so you end up with bunch of solutions that are still wrong, but somewhat (and somehow) closer to the correct solution!
You keep doing it for hunderds to thousants of cycles (accelerated years basicaly) until you end up with a solution, that actually solves your problem! after then you can keep it running and pick the "smallest" solutions to get a more efficient one eventualy...

I'm pretty sure that proves that you can get really good solutions to problems by random chance, because there also was a chance, that non of the solutions at the start would be viable at all. Also really small chance that the right mutation appears at the right spot at the right time and so on... you see.. low chance is not low if you apply it to milions of organisms and the only thing they all try to do, is to find the solution to a problem of survival...

[Anonymous No.8605002]

>>8604956
kek

[Anonymous No.8605008]

>>8604995
Evolution isn't about luck but chance. You might as well say quantum mechanics involve luck and are pseudo science

[Anonymous No.8605026]

>>8604999

[Anonymous No.8605030]

>>8604784
An honest intelctual would accept that if God does exist humans would be unable to comprehend such a being. To say otherwise is incredibly ignorant.

[Anonymous No.8605031]

>>8605008

[Anonymous No.8605032]

>>8605030
"you can't know nuthin" isn't intellectual

[Anonymous No.8605034]

>>8605026
I don't know what you mean by that.
I witnessed on my own eyes that rnd.Next(0,100) -> solution to a difficult problem

There was nothing pre-determined at it, it even comes up with completely unique and unrelated solutions or simply get's stuck because the search space is too big and my ram is not to handle bilions of organisms...

how is any of that predetermined by me? the creator? At this point all you can argue as a creationist, is that evolution is real and it works perfectly fine, and god just put it there to see what happens... with that logic, i can't argue, nor can you prove it

[Anonymous No.8605035]

>>8604863
>the traits most suited to their environment are preserved or destroyed by the pressures of each environment.
>That's the process of natural selection.
>Bitch.
That's only a part of it, the part best known to lay people. You've left out heritability of traits, Malthusian limitations leading to competition, and continual generation of new variability.

Next time know what you're talking about before you try to define a concept.

Bitch.

[Anonymous No.8605038]

>>8605032
Guilt by association is a logical fallacy

[Anonymous No.8605054]

>>8605034
Where did life arise?

[Anonymous No.8605057]

>>8604965
>The lava dome was dated at around a million years old despite being only a few years old. The man who displayed his findings was ousted as a heretic.
The lab he sent the samples to was very clear that the technique they used was only reliable for rocks >2my old. All tools and techniques have limited ranges over which they are accurate, and it is incumbent on the researcher to use the appropriate ones for the situation. You might as well claim that hand rulers are unreliable because they can't accurately measure the width of a bacterium.
(oh also, he didn't send them homogenous samples. heterogeneous samples can contain phenocrysts, which will make the rock appear older than it is if not excluded. but that's beside the point.)

>>8605031
>meaningless pseudo-scientific jargon
u sure showed him

[Anonymous No.8605060]

stop taking the bait you massive retards

[Anonymous No.8605072]

>>8605030

Honest "intelctuals" can admit ignorance without making it the centerpiece of their entire life philosophy. Darwin did this repeatedly, which you would know if you've actually read any of his work.

[Anonymous No.8605078]

>>8605054
What?
Now we are going to play the game: "if you don't have all the answers, then you are wrong" ?

programs are basicaly mathematical proofs. I just showed you that a proof exist, that by the means of evolutionary processes(driven by chance) you can get a solution to a problem from completely chaotic beginnings. (which Anon claimed is not possible)

I'm not a biologist...

[Anonymous No.8605097]

>>8605054

> shifting the goalposts this fucking hard

You can't just ask a brand new fucking question. answer the old one first.

[Anonymous No.8605107]

>>8605035

Sure, you're referring to sorting - a word which here means the combined and accumulated effects of selection on allele frequencies. Aristotle barely articulated an understanding of natural selection let alone sorting, so I'm not sure what your list of concepts associated with selection has to do with the conversation. But thanks anyway!

Uh, bitch, I guess.

[Anonymous No.8605141]

Why can't we let these b8 threads die?

0/10

[Anonymous No.8605321]

>>8605141
They will get replaced by globeheads BTFO/racebait/climate change denial anyway. Trying to get rid of these threads is a lost cause, make yourself enjoy them instead.

[Anonymous No.8605355]

>>8605107
okay, go ahead and make shit up if it makes you feel better. (no, "sorting" doesn't mean what you say it does either.)
the observation that organisms tend to be well-adapted to their environments is ancient. the idea that some unsuited might have existed but since perished is merely the first step towards theories of natural selection. You might as well say that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was also known to the ancients, since they observed that objects fall towards the earth.

Bitch.

[Anonymous No.8605390]

>>8601879
Evolution of species is not a theory, it is a fact. The theory is how it happens, the natural selection is the most accepted theory.

[Anonymous No.8605395]

>>8605390
^This guy knows what's up.

[Anonymous No.8605429]

>>8598934
You're an idiot. If a dog produced a cat, a fish produced a bird or a frog produced a human that would blow evolution apart, not prove it.

[Anonymous No.8605444]

>>8605429
>fish produced a bird
Reminded me of this.

[Anonymous No.8605530]

>>8598577
>claims to have a mountain of evidence
>posts a comic
I think we all know what kind of cruise this is.

[Anonymous No.8606984]

Bump

[Anonymous No.8606994]

>>8598609

I love how they try to link evolution to white supremacy

[Anonymous No.8606997]

Explain?!?!

[Anonymous No.8607029]

Reminder

[Anonymous No.8607068]

To all of the supposed "critics" in this thread.

[Anonymous No.8607313]

>>8607029
You can use the void as an excuse for shitty behavior, but it's not the void's fault.

[Anonymous No.8607329]

>>8607029

This is what it boils down to. Even if Materialists are 100% right, and especially if they are, the idea serves no higher Human faculties.

[Anonymous No.8607337]

>>8607329
Because nobody committed atrocities when the prevailing view was creationism, and nobody has committed non-atrocities since the prevailing view became evolution, right?

[Anonymous No.8607952]

>>8599192

>jumble of letters

>What is the alphabet?

[Anonymous No.8607964]

What the fuuuuuck. You're never going to disprove evolution. All real biology that gets anything done is going to be based on evolution. You're religion has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.8608007]

>>8607964
I agree with you, but
>you're religion

[Anonymous No.8608020]

>>8607964
And what does biology, pray tell 'get done' thanks to their belief in evolution. What kind of technological improvements has a belief in this theory rendered?

Evolutionary biology is no better than pedantic navel gazing.

[Anonymous No.8608047]

>>8598577
>http://creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm
Nope.

[Anonymous No.8608049]

Could one simulate evolution with organisms that have sufficiently short lifetimes over the course of, say, 10 years to get the prerequisite number of generations to induce enough mutations wherein the "new" species is incapable of reproducing with the "old" species?

[Anonymous No.8608058]

>>8608020
You're kidding me.
>>8608007
Sorry about that.

[Anonymous No.8608063]

>>8608049
They do this with bacteria all the time. It takes at most weeks.

[Anonymous No.8608068]

>>8608058
No go for it. By the way medicinal improvements don't count.

Physics has loads of practical applications, and the only reason for the million year old earth theory is evolution.

[Anonymous No.8608071]

>>8608063
So what's the debate?

[Anonymous No.8608080]

>>8608049
People have tried, but its never been observed. They never gain new traits. You just change the frequency of traits already present.

[Anonymous No.8608082]

>>8608020
Antibiotics.

[Anonymous No.8608091]

>>8608068
All of biology is based on evolution. Biology is basically chemistry + evolution.

[Anonymous No.8608098]

>>8608071
What debate are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.8608103]

>>8608080
>>8608080
Takes too long for new traits plus takes selection pressure. We wouldnt even know what or how much pressure to put and would probs be long so stfu

[Anonymous No.8608107]

>>8608091
Yes you can define terms, congrats.

[Anonymous No.8608111]

>>8604999
If you tried to measure the width of a bacteria and concluded it was 8 inch's, I would tell you that your method is full of shit, yes.

[Anonymous No.8608112]

>>8608107
If you accept them then you are with us.

[Anonymous No.8608115]

>evolution argue thread
>256 posts

[Anonymous No.8608121]

>>8608112
How? They are founded on a flimsy theory which goes against Biblical truth. It won't last more than four centuries

[Anonymous No.8608130]

>>8608121
If its flimsy, yours is more so. And the way you said biblical truths tells me youre either being sarcastic or a troll

[Anonymous No.8608153]

>>8608121
Plus you accepted it so
You just accepted clre tennants of our atheistic scientologist faith.

Nw run, bitch.

[Anonymous No.8608156]

>>8598577
go to college and take a fucking science class. Super over inbred shitheads thinking they have anything useful to contribute towards these conversations.

[Anonymous No.8608187]

>>8608156
Where they'll just tell you The Origin of Species is correct.

Pro tip: if your '''''''science''''''' relies on one flimsy 150 year old text which goes against creation, a fundamental tenet of Abrahamic religion, something thousands of years old, there might be some argument for protecting the reason why the churches mosques and synagogues were built in the first place. Fuck atheism, it's nihilistic, deterministic, and morally abject not to mention Darwinist.

[Anonymous No.8608201]

>>8608049
>>8608063
contrary to >>8608080, the evolution of new traits in the lab HAS been observed. a microbiologist at Michigan State, Dr. Richard Lenski, has been growing strains of E. coli in his lab since 1988, freezing samples from each of the twelve colonies at frequent intervals to create a sort of archive of the bacteria's history. the experiment managed to find a de novo mutation allowing growth on citrate, and identified the previous mutations that had potentiated the Cit+ mutation. (also, the guy who runs Conservapedia tried to mess with him about it, and basically got bitch-slapped by the good professor: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair))

unfortunately, it's hard to observe speciation in bacteria, since they mostly reproduce asexually. but Drs. William Rice and George Salt ran an experiment using Drosophila (fruit flies) that demonstrated the beginnings of (sympatric) speciation by environmental sorting.

there's a nice summary of speciation experiments here:
>http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/funmorph/raoul/CNO/Rice1993.pdf

[Anonymous No.8608207]

>>8608187
Dude darwin is not what evolution relies on ir we would have alread origins of ficking dykes. No along tome has come from him though a brilliant scientist of anytime. So fuck your dad.

[Anonymous No.8608217]

>>8608187
I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means. I believe science and religion are mutually exclusive so there's no reason for advocates of religion to disparage science or vice versa.

[Anonymous No.8608223]

>>8608217
>tfw to smart to not believe in God and see your obvious logical fallacy in this post.

[Anonymous No.8608238]

>>8608223
>not realizing the level of cognitive dissonance required to believe in god and claim to be intelligent.

[Anonymous No.8608239]

>>8608223
Humour me. What's my logical fallacy?

[Anonymous No.8608264]

>>8598577
not until now. you must be the missing link.

[Anonymous No.8608393]

>this thread
We have literally witnessed evolution taking place you fucking retards

[Anonymous No.8609176]

>>8608201
Great sources.

Now only if everyone in this thread would read through those experiments so we can at least have a common understanding of something...

instead all of the creationist will ignore this post because they lack arguments and all the evolutionists will silently admire it as a proof of their truth afraid to point it out in case someone can argue better...

too bad this whole "debate" is not set on a common goal to learn something but rather on stroking our own egos

[Anonymous No.8609770]

>>8609176
Ever tried to convince a creationist and discuss the evidence face to face with them? It goes about as well as these threads do.

"My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" and all that

[Anonymous No.8609779]

>>8609770
Irreducible Delusion

[Anonymous No.8609791]

>>8598577
>Fibonacci spirals

>Implying they appear in nature at any significant rate

[Anonymous No.8610068]

>>8603540
>Begining a reply with "except"

[Anonymous No.8610106]

>>8603540
Dude, evolution is a fact... like gravity is a fact...
what Newton did is he described the mechanisms behind gravity... Einstein later desribed different mechanisms that were more precise, but gravity it self didn't change just because someone else said something else... gravity is still a fact and so is evolution, Darwin just described the mechanisms of how it "could" possibly work. Even if Darwins theory for natural selection is completely wrong, evolution is still a fact...

so let me quote you here:
"Look up what you're talking about before you talk about it fuckface sometimes I wonder if you even have a clue what you're talking about."

[Anonymous No.8610252]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.8610313]

>>8610252

[Anonymous No.8610336]

>>8610106
Evolution is just theories about observing fossils and sediment and organism's traits.

You lose, you were wrong. Accept it. And stop treating evolution like gravity.

[Anonymous No.8610346]

>>8610336
quote:
"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."
>http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
if you really want to play with words, there you go...

[Anonymous No.8610399]

>>8598577
>fibonacci spirals

I bet your ass that creationists dont even know what the fibonacci sequence is.

>REAL evidence for evolution?

Natural selection, observe phenotypes between wolves and domesticated breeds of dogs.

[Anonymous No.8610414]

>>8610399
Well that would be pretty idiotic, to lump all this together because you're mad that I called this a war last night

[Anonymous No.8610447]

We evolved to enjoy eating lots of protein and fats. But recently we've started eating much more carbohydrates.
If we continue, how long would it take for us to evolve such that a diet primarily of carbs is optimal?

[Anonymous No.8610901]

>>8598591
Here's another one.

[Anonymous No.8610909]

>>8598591
I think this is a particularly good image.

I'm not someone who's going to say that we know for certain aliens didn't come down and genetically modify us. How would humanity as a species even prove that? If people want to believe that we aren't completely related to primates, be my guest. But the stance I'd take, if I were to take that side, is that we were genetically altered. Better than saying we were magically created.

[Anonymous No.8610913]

Guys, what would happen if all humans were gone and domestic animals were left here?

How would dogs, cats, cows, domestic horses, sheep, etc. handle it?

Especially if our structures were left to rot. I could see bands of cows living close in a rotting town. Maybe bands of dogs take over the city. It's an incredibly wonderful idea because it's all theoretically possible..

[Anonymous No.8610918]

>>8598880
It's just hard to wrap my mind around the idea that the environment had enough pressures over many years to turn small monkeys into humans. But isn't it because we're the very things we're analyzing?

[Anonymous No.8610950]

>>8610913
Pigs go boar within weeks. Pigs going wild is a big problem where I live. Pigs wouldn't be too bothered by humans dying.

Dogs would breed down into a single breed. Things like pugs and bulldogs would die out completely.

Cats would be mostly fine depending on location. In the US, they'd be a bit in trouble due to coyote populations. Cats already get murdered in hordes by coyotes as is.

Cows and horses have no real predators left in most first world countries. Would be fine. Some might revert to aurochs within a few generations, but I doubt it. No real need.

[Anonymous No.8610965]

>>8610950

Cows would be fucked as soon as wolves notice there's a dearth of gun-toting rancher.

The natural order reasserts itself. Man is a distant memory.

[Anonymous No.8611028]

>>8610950
>Things like pugs and bulldogs would die out completely.

Some small breeds might survive. Not the grossly deformed ones. They'd be akin to small mammals you see in the woods I'd bet.

[Anonymous No.8611030]

>>8610965
Isn't that like saying all bison would be fucked because of wolves? Cows are all spread out all over the place.

The reality is even crazier. It's pretty fantastic. You will also see a lot of deaths of animals in captivity unless some break free.

[Anonymous No.8611187]

>>8608238
Go on, I'm in mood for some cringe.

[Anonymous No.8611218]

>>8603079
That's natural selection. Same as antibiotic resistance.

[Anonymous No.8611235]

>>8610913

Fun, pop-sci book.

Elephants would dominate Africa...no shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Without_Us

[Anonymous No.8611242]

>>8610918
the reason why it is still hard for you to give in to the idea is probably because you think monkey to human evolution is a big thing because of humans being this amazing thing.
but thats the wrong way too look at it. Humans are not the peak of evolution and evolution doesn't stride for inteligence. Evolution doesn't have an agenda to try and make everything "human". Rather human are nothing more then a few changes in the dna, as much as a great ape is from a monkey. The reason why there is so many of us and we have cars and buildings is indirect effect of that evolutionary trait and as a result a chain reaction occured. Evolution won't give you a big and powerfull brain until you can survive with it. which something just slightly smarter then a great ape couldn't... but we were alowed to acumulate evolutionary traits in inteligence as we discovered and build things. simply put bigger brain -> needs more energy -> apes now hunt in groups -> more food -> more energy => bigger brain
the cycle just repeats over and over as long as every group of more inteligent, or differently shaped apes can survive with the biology they have.

[swaglord No.8611245]

>>8604733
Thats the point of creationism, making others look like evil

[swaglord No.8611267]

>>8611242
/thread
we can archive now?

Humans aren't the peek of anything. Religion believed human were at the center of EVERYTHING, created creationism because apparently "god created us to represent him".
Ego is the only thing that we are the peek of, and that's why the whole human specie should die, for the sake of everything that exist or don't.

[Anonymous No.8611326]

If "someone" was smart enough to create the universe, they'd be smart enough to program living organisms to adapt

[Anonymous No.8611344]

>>8607337

No one treated ordinary People as a resource before Materialist became mainstream, yes.

[Anonymous No.8611363]

>>8599261
To take it a step further I'm one of those postmodernist faggots who even doubt that "species" is a clear cut category, my selection pool would look more like this:
-Specimen

[Anonymous No.8611375]

>>8598577
>Evolution-the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
Most of us evolve for the better first half of our lives. Not you.

[Anonymous No.8611463]

>thinking that god couldn't have designed such a beautiful mechanism as evolution to create man in his own image
>implying god need exist inside our own universe
>implying it matters either way


From what we can determine of the structure of the universe, god must be one hell of a mathematician

[Anonymous No.8611466]

>>8611463
Stop. You shouldn't conflate the two at all. Not what God intended by saying we were created. I'll bet you don't literally believe the world deluge either.

[Anonymous No.8611476]

>>8611463
>thinking that god couldn't have designed such a beautiful mechanism as evolution to create man in his own image

>Theory of evolution is proposed
>It can't be true because god created all living beings
>Evidence confirms theory of evolution
>Well that just means god is even greater than we originally thougt

It's just an unfalsifiable claim that explains nothing.

[Anonymous No.8611573]

>>8611476
It's not supposed to explain anything - the point is that God creating by evolution isn't illogical.

[Anonymous No.8611584]

>>8611375
That's the dictionary definition. In science evolution doesn't necessarily lead to more complex organisms.