B-but random mutations!

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/qv6UVOQ0F44
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

y does the hair grow long on head but not monkey

Plz be trolling. And change a few thousand years to a few million

...

ehhh, change million to 100k

Why are they comparing black people and white people
Also how do we know the one on the left is female

I guess the monkey would know

4 MYA

thats very inaccurate, your comparing brazilian and white evolution

...

No one claims humans evolved from monkeys, idiot.

How do you explain different species of bird or dog?

We did not come from chimpanzees, we came from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans

This is how retards believe evolution works because it satisfies their feelings.

OP on the left

>m-muh carbon dating is 100% accurate

COMMON ANCESTOR

COMMON

FUCKING

ANCESTOR

Dumb, not ape to human in a few thousand years. KYS

Unfortunately your opinions do not receive affirmative action.

Humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees you fucking retard. Chimpanzees and humans share a COMMON ANCESTOR, meaning if you go back millions of years in the evolutionary tree, there was a common ancestor that split and evolved into apes and hominids, the latter eventually evolving into multiple differentiated species, leading to humans, neanderthals, etc.

There's several ways of dating things. Radiometric dating gives the absolute age, but they can also measure the relative age with isotrope ratios, paleomagnetism, sediment marker horizons, ect. It's actually absurd to argue that the data is wrong, since there's just so much to argue against. The best you have is "the devil did it".

Basically, young earth creationists should be euthanized.

...

Are you saying if it gets cold enough for long enough Brazil could be white too?

even the abos are 75k from indians (75k in the wrong direction)

>Radiometric dating
fancy name but same principle of carbon dating.

>muh millions of years!

The entire age of our universe would not be sufficient. Multiple scientists and mathematicians have blown evolution the fuck out, but retards cling to their 'scientific' religion more tightly then a southern Baptist clings to his Bible.

Odds of abiogenesis: 1 in 10^450 (per Marcel E. Golay; other estimates are even worse)
Odds of evolution by mutation/natural selection to the complexity level of a modern mammal: 1 in 10^3,000,000 (again, Golay)
Number of atoms in the universe: 10^80
Number of potential chemical reactions since the Big Bang: 10^120

If this universe were a sim you could run it 10^100 and still not expect to see first life.

If first life was seeded on every habitable planet as early as possible after the Big Bang, NO planet would ever see evolution to the complexity level of a mammal. Habitable zones simply cannot last that long and that's bound by the laws of physics governing stars.

Michael Denton has computed even worse odds than Golay. Randomness cannot account for the genomes we're observing and sequencing.

I can't tell you with certainty that our universe was created. (Though it's starting to look that way from quantum physics. It's starting to look like a sim.) But I can tell you, with mathematical certainty, that life in this universe is not random. Life from some other universe came here, seeded life, and upgraded it multiple times (Cambrian explosion for one).

Randomness plays a part in gene expression and shift. But the evolution we witness is within the bounds of genetic programming. Essentially whatever created us created a genetic search algorithm for adaptation. But that algorithm cannot create entirely new features. Sherpas near Everest have evolved higher tolerance for cold and thin air. But they will never evolve wings to just fucking fly around the mountain ranges no matter how many billions of years pass.

Evolution is not what you were taught by your loser HS biology teacher.

If you happen to have a source I would be most interested in it. Even if it were thousands of pages or a pastebin, I'd devour this.

>you will never caress her on a perfectly flat plane just before you are annihilated by a nuclear explosion
Why even exist?

Humans in just 100 years have evolved from barbaric midgets to tall free thinkers. It wouldn't be inconceivable that humans were apes millions of years ago.

>trying to disprove evolution
>starts talking about genisis
Is it fun being this retarded?

Evolution is an unproven theory, a pseudo-religion you might even say.
All we could ever observe are micro evolution known as mutations, macro evolution was never observed or proven, so why the fuck do you believe in it?
pic very much related

Mutations are only negative. or neutral.

Why would a Brazilian turn into a beatiful women after cold weather and a couple thousand years. Wouldn't the Brazilian die by then lol.

People believe anything if (((science))) say so.

Even though today almost no one read Darwin

>Cambrian explosion
Thanks for bringing that up, none of these cunts ever want to talk about it.

South american indoniggers and Africans don't want to believe in evolution because they're the closest to monkeys we've got

All that dating is based on the assumption that whatever radioactive element they are measuring was present at the exact same concentration as present-day. Then they measure the rock and see how much they find, and do some half-life math.

The 'same concentration as today' is a hugely flawed assumption. How the fuck would they know if it were the same.

If any of y'all have worked with learning algorithms on the compuytar then you should know how difficult it is for a random walk to find an optimal solution to some game or whatever say mario. Sometimes it is impossible to teach the algorithm some complex step and it will forever never progress that point. Same with evolution.

Mutations are proven to only cause harm to the organism.

Some bacteria have developed immunity to some antibiotics, but in exchange cannot reproduce effectively. That's not proof of evolution - that's proof there's a right way and a wrong way.

I actually read Origin of Species. So boring! Many pro-evolution cultists say I should read it. I very much doubt they ever did. Probably masturbated to Richard Dawkins videos and called themselves enlightened and reasonable.

Darwin's main argument is based on what he thinks God did. He references God many times on the book. Darwin also comes up short in numerous areas: the cell, how the eyes came about, relying on future discoveries to prove his case, and with the references to God I'm fairly sure it won't be taught in public schools. And his main idea is only conjecture; it could happen, it might happen, etc. He did use a type of forensics in his book, so there is some science in it, but his evidence is based on imaginative stories that nature could send storms and disease to kill off different traits - not been proven. Stories rather than empirical proofs.

Also, many cultists don't acknowledge this; Darwin had a co-author, Alfred Wallace. He's not brought up in Evolutionary occult circles because he said the theory failed. He moved away from it a few years after publication. His name is on early editions, but is later removed.

The theory is pseudoscience. Can't be proven. Best to call it a fairy tale.

This is the US education system, everybody.

Prove it wrong

Except that's wrong, research the checkered moths. What do you mean bacteria incapable of reproducing? They literally just split in half.

You're introducing irrelevant variables, is your argument "b-but you weren't there." There are only a handful of isotopes, we know which isotopes we find naturally, so that is how we know when looking at alpha decay.

>what is punctuated equillibrium

>It's another "Sup Forums thinks they know more than scientists" episode

You need to keep in mind we aren't descended from chimps, we share a common ancestor.

But looking at your flag I see you never evolved past the common ancestor.

Read a biology textbook, you moron. No such thing as a helpful mutation.

and finding radiocarbon on something thats supposed to be older than that

Brazilians still look like the chick on the left so I don't understand what's your point

A mutation is literally any change in the structure of a gene. That means that you're a mutant because genetically you are not a perfect blend of both your parents.


I know your just memeing and baiting us but I feel the need to clear up the misconception.

The mutations you're thinking of are frameshift and alteration mutations, in which a gene is deleted, resulting in entirely new proteins being made (which can be catastrophic) and when a gene is altered to a different one (respectively.)


But through sexual reproduction the processes of meiosis allow for more genetic variation via less potentially harmful forms of mutation.


Do you get it now?

>multiple scientist have BTFO evolution
Interesting, such as?

>muh mathematical probability
What does this have anything to do with disproving any of it happening? When you have up to 2 trillion galaxies, each holding billions of stars, can you even comprehend the amount of planets? These odds are based on it turning out the way it DID, not if it CAN happen.
>citing the number of atoms and chemical reaction
Literally pointless.

>citing the odds for abiogenisis and evolution
What are these statistics even based on? Have you ever bothered to question that? Have you ever heard of hypothetic history? All these "ifs" are meaningless because it happened regardless if you want to believe it did. We know how our planet formed, we know how it became the way it did. You're fucking up if you mean only life, because cyanobacteria is life that doesn't even require sunlight to survive.

>muh devine creator bringing up the Cambrain Explosion
>not knowing what punctuated equillibrium.

>we will never evolve wings
Because we are biologically incapable of flying even if we did have wings you fucking retard. Humans will never have the pectorals necessary to fly.

this is an epic meme

why did you use a white woman instead of a black one?

It's not random, you idiot. It's intelligent. How is an eye made? Exactly.

Ebin education x-d

can you not fucking read

cold weather

Our chins evolved in, and our noses evolved out, eventually natural selection evened these two out.

I'm sure, even someone as dumb as you can comprehend why a large nose would be more valuable than a fucking chin.

>No such thing as a helpful mutation
>What is lactose persistence

...

Okay. What level of intelligence went into the Platypus?

Loaded question, eyes first started out as photosensitive cells, and subsequently became more complex through millions of years of evolution.

>Basically, young earth creationists should be euthanized.

>evolution happened because of a mutation and thats how we get life..

Both are the same thing but different ways of telling it.

>radiocarbon
is this a meme?

the latter statement represents a complete lack of understanding of biology. Mutations occur due to mistakes during protein synthesis, 99% of these do nothing. These changes along with genetic diveristy inevitably lead to surival of the fittest. Natural selection is what drives evoution. What I am typing out to you is literally elementary.

>what is an isotope

I blame it on our tendency to call everything into question, which almost always leads to slothful deduction.

For the Big Bang to have happened, according to the simple cause and effect principle, something outside of our single point highly dense unborn universe had to have set it into motion. This unknown force does not have to abide by our laws of physics, time, or any other set law that exists within our universe, because it existed outside of our universe. I believe this "unknown force" to be have been God.

On macro evolution, the arrangement of our universe, and the complexity of our laws of physics and position in our galaxy that allows life to thrive, it is all so perfectly fine tuned that it is mathematically impossible to have happened by chance. To say that life developed complex systems that respond to different types of stimuli that previously couldn't even be detected by the organism just by random evolution over time is almost asinine. Genetic coding in our DNA is so impressive that there is no way that we developed organs that pick up light such as our eyes and organ systems that work together such as the nervous or digestive systems simply by chance. That's like slamming on your keyboard billions of times until eventually you get a working operating system with full set of applications

DNA is a genetic code that builds a working and living organism.

Open up a command shell on your computer, type in a bunch of random commands in a line and hit enter. No syntax error? Unlikely, but if not save that line of code. Now do the same thing repeatedly and when you receive a syntax error, go back one line and try random commands again. Do this billions of times and come back to me when you have an operating system with a full web browser and Team Fortress 2. Also, it must have a full AI

Odds of abiogenesis: 1 in 10^450 (per Marcel E. Golay; other estimates are even worse)
Odds of evolution by mutation/natural selection to the complexity level of a modern mammal: 1 in 10^3,000,000 (again, Golay)
Number of atoms in the universe: 10^80
Number of potential chemical reactions since the Big Bang: 10^120

If this universe were a sim you could run it 10^100 and still not expect to see first life.

If first life was seeded on every habitable planet as early as possible after the Big Bang, NO planet would ever see evolution to the complexity level of a mammal. Habitable zones simply cannot last that long and that's bound by the laws of physics governing stars.

Michael Denton has computed even worse odds than Golay. Randomness cannot account for the genomes we're observing and sequencing.

I can't tell you with certainty that our universe was created. (Though it's starting to look that way from quantum physics. It's starting to look like a sim.) But I can tell you, with mathematical certainty, that life in this universe is not random. Life from some other universe came here, seeded life, and upgraded it multiple times (Cambrian explosion for one).

Randomness plays a part in gene expression and shift. But the evolution we witness is within the bounds of genetic programming. Essentially whatever created us created a genetic search algorithm for adaptation. But that algorithm cannot create entirely new features. Sherpas near Everest have evolved higher tolerance for cold and thin air. But they will never evolve wings to just fucking fly around the mountain ranges no matter how many billions of years pass.

An isotope is just something along the lines of carbon-12

Average size across a population increasing doesn't really have anything to do with evolution in this case - it's an inevitable result of the general population having greater access to better nutrition.

Also, whether or not we were apes millions of years ago isn't a question up for debate. We ARE apes, and will continue to be apes.

Didn't realize this was already posted. I did not write this post, but I did compose my other two

>he doesn't understand cosmology and that the big bang could have started within the event horizon fo the black hole.

>we need a devine creator for new genes to come forth
No, the genes found ubiquitous are due to the fact it benefited the organsim. Why do you think do many insects have 6 legs? Because there are three on the floor at all times and a tripod is a very stable position. Organs today are the result of millions of years of mutations, we didnt just one day develope a heart.

false equivalency fallacy

Finally a leaf talking some sense

How is it false?

We share a common ancestor, we are not descended from chimps. Try a a few million years as well my dude.

That post is based on the misconception that DNA works in the manner of literally being code. DNA is just nucleotides that are responsible for performing protein synthesis, these proteins then go on to make an organism that has metabolism.

And the Cambridge explosion fits this how? The rate of mutation is not enough to explain the appearance of organ systems that detect and interpret stimuli such as light or sound that was previously unknown to the organism entirely, not to mention the sheer complexity of it

DNA literally is code you fucking idiot, the input has a direct output every time unless mutations occur at random. The nucleotides are just the data

youtu.be/qv6UVOQ0F44

>rate of mutation
define what the required mutation would be. Sound is just vibrations, so all an organism needs is touch sensitive organs, and light can be detected though just a mere cell. Jellyfish posses both of these things, and they process food and expell it through one hole. Jellyfish are one step above sea pens.

The Cambrian Explosion, which I assume is what you meant to type before autocorrect made your question sound like a reference to a scholastic visit from the religion of peace, lasted about 25 million years. That's quite a long time really.

>DNA is literally code
not in the way you're thinking. To compare DNA to a computer language is a false equivalency fallacy; you're overgeneralizing to the point it is no longer true.

...

Not enough for the rate of mutation to produce what you're wanting it to

How so?

Touch had to be developed too, and cells that detect light developed the ability to detect light. All stimuli was at one point unknown to the organism