[ 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: 1.73 MB, 2000x1333, Lena-and-Rosie-Pula.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8638679 No.8638679 [Reply] [Original]

If evolution exists, then why do wolves still exist?

>> No.8638751

>>8638679

Wolves exist because they didn't die out yet.

>> No.8639255

>>8638679
Because wolves are better at surviving in wild while dogs are better at surviving with humans in human settlements. They both have different habitats and therefore don't have to compete with each other. The better species cause the extinction of similar weaker species when they compete with each other and that is possible only when they share same habitat which is not the case with dogs and wolves.

>> No.8639262

>>8638679
WHAT THE FUCK
Holy shit, abbos are ugly as fuck.
Are these things even human?
Real question, /sci/

>> No.8639279

>>8638679
Simple

Because they are not exctinct yet

Evolution does not necessarily defines if a species goes exctint.Sure exctintion has been/is part of evolutionary processes IF some factors allow so.

Besides, the process takes millions of years

>> No.8639284

>>8638679
Huh, that's a good question. Actually 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.8639291

nudes?

>> No.8639294

Because dogs are estranged "manchildren" wolves thrice removed by man and wouldn't be able to outcompete wolves even if their lives depended on it.

>> No.8639295

>>8639262
You can, um, fertilize... one and create offspring that are themselves fertile.

So yes, they are the same species as us.

>> No.8639299

>>8639295
>You can, um, fertilize... one and create offspring that are themselves fertile.
I don't think so. Has anyone ever tried it? I mean... Fucking hell.

>> No.8639316

>>8639284
Both share a common ancestor. Yes we have things in common with chimpanzees, we deduct that the common ancestor must have had these basic features we share with chimpanzees and other groups because it's the only link you can find.

Imagine you and your ''brother'' have the same characteristics in your nose, the only link between you and your brother is your ancestors nose let's say your father or your mother's nose (That's a very simple and not literal example)

We are more advanced than chimps but that does not mean we have the same evolutionary path, we just share a common ancestor. (same start point, different path taken)

There are still chimps because they are the most modern species of their group, again...we do not share the same evolutionary path. There are still chimps simply because they are not exctint and they are currently evolving...remember this process takes millions of years and a lot of factors.

Yes, current studies and evidency suggest that birds evolved from A SPECIFIC group of dinosaurs (the raptors), we know that because they share development, genetic, lyfe cycle and anatomycal features. There were a lot of different group of dinosaurs, the group that originated birds did not become exctint and we know that because they exist today. Birds are not dinosaurs, but theorically the group of dinosaurs from they come is not extinct yet, that is debatable.

>> No.8639350

>>8639262
That's racist mate

>> No.8639355

>>8638679
If computers and ebook readers are superior to print material, why are there still books/magazines or even printers? Why is there still paper?

>> No.8640060

>>8639316
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.8640083

>>8640060
Do you realize that genetics proves Darwin right on a daily basis.

>> No.8640098

>>8638679
Are those the witcher 3 crone's?

>> No.8640251

>>8640083
You do realize thats a copy and paste troll?

>> No.8640538
File: 56 KB, 390x470, a2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8640538

>>8640083
>>8639316
baited hard
>>8639284
>>8640060
o im laffin

>> No.8640544

>evolution exists
Lol if it exists how come I can't touch it? Dumbass fucking Scientologists you all smell.

>> No.8640957

>>8639350
Found the abbos

>> No.8640978

>>8639262

Ah yes, the /pol/ "human" test.

Are they ugly? - Yes - Not human.

Are they attractive? - Yes - Master race.

>> No.8640980

>>8639295
I sincerely think that one would have trouble doing that

>> No.8640982

>>8639262
Its a sore theme but nope.

>> No.8641012

Can someone provide to me some logical proofs that goes against evolution?! I would like what you've meant there lul

>> No.8641047

>>8639350

not an answer

>> No.8641072

>>8639295
There are several examples of inter-species fertilization and fertile offspring though
>>8639350
how hot is it in Australia?
>>8641012
Here's a groof: if evolute, why homos exhist? homosex = no kids

>> No.8641079

>>8638679
If US exists, then why does UK still exist?

>> No.8641102

>>8641079
we all know it's on it's way out

>> No.8641395

>>8638679
Yeah, it's pretty sad so many people haven't given it up yet. Spiders are another example. Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

>> No.8641399

>>8641072
>>8639295
This is the middle school definition of species.

The actual modern definition is based on genetics.

Humans have an Fst of 0.16 between the most distance populations. The general limit to even divided a species into subspecies is 0.30

Humans have about 1/10th of the genetic diversity of other apes, and we are that much more related to each other.

All humans alive on the planet today are genetically more similar to one another than different troops of chimps are to each other.

>> No.8641400

>>8641012
That episode of Futurama where they create that planet of machines.

>> No.8642018

>>8641012
Oh yea, I have alot of that. There are a lot of challenges to evolution. In order for it to be the case that it was in fact true that evolution did happen in the past, then it would be duly nesessary for one or two of several key pointers to be also true as well. However, this can be like trying to explain colors to a blind-man- you're just wasting your time sometimes. Anyway, back to the facts. The point of the matter which is under discussion is the fact that, in order for frogs to have evolved from fish, then it would be required that 1) the fish became able to breathe air 2) the fish became able to walk on land. In order for a fish to evlove into a FROG isn't it necessary that absolutely both 1 and 2 have to occur simultaneously? It is so improbable that both of those "beneficial" mutations would occur at one time that one might be willing to admit confidently that they are less than one in a million. Therefore, you also have to consider the fact that EVEN if both the 1 in a 10^6% chance of both 1 and 2 happening, how would the frogs even know what to do with the legs and the air? If you think about them, these aren't too beneficial in the first place anyways.