Evolution debunking thread

Evolution is the biggest blue pill pushed on us since elementary school.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=HCEQ6kAN9DU
youtube.com/watch?v=jqQPTxo_voo
youtube.com/watch?v=0d4FHHf00pY
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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.

Evolution is such a bald lie, I can't believe the traction it has gained on most liberals. Complete hokum.

Go suck your jew god's cock you fucking ignorant moron.

Evolution is degenerative. Mutations can't produce new features, they only destroy already existing ones. Think about the fucking chances that your DNA mutates and just HAPPENS to code for proteins which just so HAPPEN to be the exact feature which perfectly suits the environment. If this were true, there should also be countless millions of retarded mutations that are neutral or are bad.

For example, how is it that we just happened to evolve our thumbs? If it was by complete chance, then shouldn't there be hundreds of millions of retarded proto-thumbs? No, it happened to be perfect.

The only logical explanation for evolution is that it was intentionally designed. Atheists put so much faith into the chance that evolution happened by random, but there is more chance that a creator designed than the universe in our conditions than this! Therefore atheists should be theists if they are so willing to believe everything by chance.

Jews being gods chosen people is the biggest fraud in history yet modern Christians mostly evangelicucks still believe it
m.youtube.com/watch?v=HCEQ6kAN9DU

>amrisharts don't understand evolution
kek

>I believe this "unknown force" to be have been God.
Why?

>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
No it isn't. I think you're forgetting how big the universe is, lad.

I think the notion of "debunking" requires some coherent theory or agenda to disprove. Evolution seems like some amalgam of hand waving that defies logic or any concrete lines of reasoning.

Do you realize scientists never say that the "unknown force" cannot be God? They just say they don't know what it was, you're jumping to conclusion saying it was.

Also, what the hell has big bang have to do with evolution?

I'm not bothered to type out in a sophisticated manner, but pretty much this

lol
pic related

No it's actually the most accessible red pill because saying, "evolution applies to all living organisms, just not to humans you disgusting racist nazi," is logically inconsistent.

Reminder that the size of the universe is measured using speculative science.

>it is all so perfectly fine tuned that it is mathematically impossible to have happened by chance.

holy fuck you are retarded.
If the universe is expanding and almost infinite in it's size, or at least unimaginable big, then such a small chance suddenly becomes a not so small chance if seen from the right perspective - that is the universe perspective.

you are absolutely retarded

lrn2astronomy

Let me guess... high school biology textbooks were too hard for you?

Evolution has been demonstrated in the field via experiment.

You had me until
>impossible to have happened by chance
Things adapt when shit is tough. That's why you have animals that have acclimated to every godforsaken hellhole earth could muster (acid swamps, antarctica, Chicago). After 3 billion years of animal life forms changing with earth and trying to survive we finally have humans with enough sapience to try to understand it all, and you say it's all too perfect?

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.


Learn2math

I always wondered when the anti evolution people say the earth hasn't been around long enough for it to go from a single cell life form to what we have today.

B A I T
A
I
T

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

>Mutations can't produce new features, they only destroy already existing ones.

So i had 8 molars, my dad had 9. If this example doesnt fit, look up finches.

Oh really? How?

Humans have FORCED evolution on animals, we do it even today. Pedigree dogs are selectively bred for height, weight, looks. That is over 8ish generations.

Now compare it to humans, tons of humans migrate north, food is in the trees. Humans with longer arms fare better, survive longer, reach more food. Long arms breed with long arms, short arms die out...few generations, every fucker has long arms.

Sight, strength, agility, intelligence, all evolved in us to our current standards.

He must be referring to micro evolution and adaptation, because macro evolution and the development of organs and organ systems has NEVER been proven, nor has abiogenesis

you are retarded for wanting to debunk evolution, evolution is what explains racial differences

Micro evolution and adaptation is not the same as the theory of the origin of life and is not being debated

ONCE AGAIN, micro evolution and adaptation suffice to explaining racial differences, macro evolution is a myth

Reminder that it doesn't matter how the universe is measured it just matters how big it is.

I guarantee that if those equations were really made up by those mathematicians they had no idea how evolution worked. It sounds they didn't factor in the hundreds of thousands of other factors invovled, they just based it all on randomness. Evolution isn't random.

The top post says evolution is a bluepill, I said it isn't.

Debunkers keep changing the rules. 'Durf durf god did everything'...evolution is basically proven...'durf durf well god did the start bit, then we evolved, his plan'....

Keep moving the goalposts, eventually you'll get to 'Well god set the big bang up, the rest was his plan'...

Seriously, god is a crutch for the weak minded and scared. When you die, you die, thats it, nothing else. So enjoy your fucking life, cos its the only one you get.

There was no outside our single point of the universe. The big bang didn't create mass and energy inside of spacetime. The BigBang literally is the start of existence, matter, energy, time, space. Conceptualizing something before or outside the Universe prior to the Big Bang fundamentally doesn't make sense, it's dividing by zero.

And yes, evolution has known mechanisms. You claim eyes are too complex to have evolved. They've evolved twice on this planet alone. Vertebrate and Invertebrate eyes co-evolved. We know this because Human eyes are ass-fucking backwards, and perhaps the least intelligently designed organ in nature, while Cuddlefish, a OLD fucking species have some of the most advanced eyes in the animal kingdom.

evolution doesnt explain itself, because transistion fossils rly dont exist! And humans are a freak of nature that evolution cannot at all explain. Honestly I wouldnt mind evolutionists saying animals evolved, but humans do not belong here. There is not a single human bone in the so called human fossil record. The leap from our prior ancestor to us was so massive it'd take millions n millions of years of "biological evolution" as touted to us by psuedo-intellectual turds.

Appealing to ignorance and cherry picking bits of science while ignoring the rest of the theories seems dishonest.

To say these numbers are accurate implies we know everything to get those correct variables. Not to mention, not being able to provide sufficient evidence for a god claim and thinking it will look better after trying to disprove scientific theories is silly.

The OP's choice of picture gets top kek.

fuck muslims bref

youtube.com/watch?v=jqQPTxo_voo

except you're wrong...

Plenty of stepping stone skeletons found that trace a human and neanderthal lineage.

note the inconsistencies of the left:

Left supports Islam...but also evolution
Left supports Islam...but also homos and such
Left supports Science...but also unhealthy fat people

Perfect logic

...

Adding more variables would undoubtedly only bring the exponential difference down a few factors, not hundreds, leaving the number still at an unfathomable amount. Also, look into the variables that were used, it covers a very wide basis

This is political because evolution is taught by the public school system by law at the taxpayers expense

Regardless, its the best estimate we have. Got a better one?

when "G"O"D" created apes, he musta been drunk or somethin, cuz they were poorly designed aesthetically in comparison to humans. However, when he created humans, he musta been high, because humans don't have as good a pair of feet as apes.

Are you saying my argument is the best estimate we have? Because mathematically it is correct, disproving your theory

not evolution if the traits are already present in their ancestors and they selectively breed to pronounce those traits. If anything selective breeding devolves the animal considering they are smaller or have more health problems compared to their to wild counterparts

Macro evolution is defined as the differences between species, microevolution is defined as the differences between the same species. We have literally observed new species emerge, so you're wrong on that one.

>Stone tools

What has a better chance? The one thats not asserted as true. Its not that hard when you stop playing hide the ball with reality.

What about Homo sapiens idaltu?

youtube.com/watch?v=0d4FHHf00pY

Macro evolution implies that organs and organ systems developed through mutations which is false

Plebians, please.
The big bang was the result of a giant black hole caused by the majority of the known universes matter being in the same place. Eventually all that mass caved in on itself due to its overwhelming weight and turned into pure energy until it combusted.
There is no sense of arguing what happened before then because the human mind is not capable to even remotely process the concept of infinity.

What would you say is the difference between micro- and macro-evolution?

Macro evolution refers to the mutations causing organisms to change class genus and species, micro referred to the same species

And subspecies for micro

So the distinction between micro- and macro- is arbitrary and basically meaningless. Species is not as black-and-white as most people assume, especially when drawing lines between successive species. Biologists disagree constantly as to whether some species are distinct or not, and species are reclassified all the time. Admittedly usually not at the class level, but reclassifying genus is far from unheard of.

Noted, I'm not quite sure what argument you're trying to present here though

That your argument (micro-evolution existing but macro-evolution not) is faulty because there is no meaningful distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.

My point was that adaptation occurs whereas the full development of organs and organ systems does not

Your point should be that the development of new organ systems has not been directly observed - no surprise given that it takes a lot longer than human civilisation has lasted so far.

We don't say gravity doesn't exist just because we can't see it directly. We can see the effects of gravity though, and it would be extremely foolish to see these effects and deny that gravity exists. Like gravity, we can see the effects of "macro" evolution in the genomes of modern organisms and the fossil record. I invite you to complete the analogy yourself.