You don't actually believe human beings used to be fish, do you Sup Forums?

You don't actually believe human beings used to be fish, do you Sup Forums?
Take the creation pill.

Other urls found in this thread:

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes, evolution can be observed in real time in micro environments.

>It's another evolution works like in Pokemon thread

No, there are no pancestors living today, you christ faggot.

Fish and people are both bilaterally symmetric, have faces, and bones.

I know this is a shitpost thread, but has anyone read Thomas Nagel's "Mind and cosmos"? He gives an interesting argument against evolution on the basis of its inability to explain consciousness.

That's micro-evolution only. Show me an actual example of macro-evolution where a new species develops. Explain to me how chromosomal numbers could change between generations.

Are you saying God isn't capable to transform fish into humans? That sounds like heresy.

epigenetic adaptations is not evolution you fucking potato

Micro evolution is real, of course

My fiancée's mother doesn't believe in evolution because it goes against the law of entropy. I believe in it, however it is a good point.

OFC i do not belive (((this))) shit.

>there are millions of australopithecines
Where?

The answer to the image is that those species of primates went extinct due to not being able to adapt and fit into new environments

They tell us that we lost our tails, evolving up from little snails
I say it's all just wind in sails. Are we not men?

West Africa

consciousness is simply a state where the intelligence of a being increases to the point where it achieves self-awareness and the capability to grasp, retain and consider thoughts beyond its physical needs and immediate environment.
It doesn't need to be fucking explained it is a side effect of natural selection selecting smarter and smarter sapiens.

dude, take a look at brazil and turks. its true

Only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Species are only concepts, all life is just same matter mutated in different ways. A new species is born whenever we want to classify certain sets of mutations as its own distinct species

That's an interesting theory you have there. Now prove it, and you will be recognized as one of the greatest philosophers of all time.

There are chimps in Africa but nothing that's a direct precursor of human beings like australopithecus. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Russian education system still going stronk I see.
Have they replaced your lunchtime milk with vodka yet?
I would ask if your expert doctors have figured out drinking while pregnant causes retard
babies, but we both know russian doctors are tard babies themselves so it's a catch-22.

That's not what Nagel means by consciousness. He's talking about Phenomenal feels like Pain or the sensation of color. Consciousness of this sort is left out because it is assumed to be an Epiphenonemon ; It does not casually interact with physical matter.

But if it can't casually interact, it can't be selected for. So goes Nagel's argument

>its true
by reverse - is
degeneration and devolution is reality
no doubt

Yeah the fossil record is made up by (((them)))

Can you prove that these so called Australopithecus weren't just regular chimps?

how about the species in OP's pic?

You want to wait 1000 years and see for yourself.

boy are you gonna feel stupid when CRISPR kicks off.

"Random mutations" can't explain how the number of chromosomes could change between generations. That's why evolution is a discredited theory.

wot?
shut up mehmet

Saw a few living specimens in brazil, in fact a disabled athlete was robbed at knife point by one if memory serves correctly.

Holy shit the creationists are bringing out the big guns -- pretending we don't understand things that we understand!
My god... his bald-faced ignorance in the face of a computer that can use google... it's almost going to make me forget that Attention Schema Theory was proposed over a year ago to summarize the evolutionary explanation for consciousness!

do you have down's syndrome

>how the number of chromosomes could change between generations.
But all Canadians have an extra chromosome.

> it can't be selected for.

This is false, because increased level of consciousness directly increases chances of survival. Casual interaction with physical matter is irrelevant.

>Muh negroes

>new litter has new mutation where they have 22 chromosones isntead of 20

WOOPS CANT BREED BECAUSE NO 22 MUTATIONS TO BREED WITH SINCE 1/BILLION CHANCE FOR EVEN ONE LITTER

Your picture is wrong ya dingus. Goddammit Portugal, you used to be cool

Yes it can. Chromosomes fuse or duplicate

No, there aren't millions of these because these are Austrolopithecus, not monkeys. Saged.

Go back to high school and learn about DNA you fucking retard. Holy shit, leafs really are the worst posters on this board.

>where are millions of these

you basically admit you have no clue what the evolutionary theory is.

Replied just to sage.

>"Random mutations" can't explain how the number of chromosomes could change between generations.

Then why do they change?

Why do you need consciousness for pain or colour?
Even singular cells can react to phenomenon, they'll move away from areas too hot or too cold.
Once organisms got to the stage where they needed brains to process their stimulus is when concepts like pain and colour would've taken on an input that would be recognizable to us.

Exactly. People with Down Syndrome don't produce gametes that are also missing a chromosome. And what's more, you can't possibly argue that any chromosomal disorder in any species is an evolutionary advantage. You evolution credulists just completely ignore this fundamental problem with your discredited theory.

>My fiancée's mother doesn't believe in evolution because it goes against the law of entropy
Your fiancee's mother is an idiot. The law of entropy applies to a closed system. Without external influence a system's entropy (disorder) will increase over time. Organisms are not a closed system; there are external influences on them. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics is not applicable to evolution, but evolution in no way contradicts it.

(((Austrolopithecus)))

so why is it that adding a chromosome or deleting one ends up in a 100% completely retarded baby? Why don't we see more or less chromosomes that end up being helpful?

>this kills the atheist

They don't change. God created all life.

>And what's more, you can't possibly argue that any chromosomal disorder in any species is an evolutionary advantage.

No one is attempting to do so. Each human is born with hundreds of mutations. Whether a particular mutation becomes an evolutionary advantage is completely dependent on the environment the individual is surrounded by.

Hmmm... That's an interesting point, user. 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

God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. The Bible is not a book of science, but a book of metaphors.

the bible got it all wrong

what REALLY happened is god wanted to make a living creature so he developed the single cell organism. then he decided it wasnt good enough and made some variations of that. then he made more organisms with cells as the basic building block. then over the course of a few hundred million years he made a shit ton of things and finally decided he would make something that looked like him and he made humans

Because it's like jamming a card into a house of cards
Our genome is too complex at this point to throw a fucking wrench into the whole thing and not expect something to choke
Single celled organisms can undergo fucking insane mutations and remain fertile because their functions are basic enough that only a complete and total rogering will do irreparable damage.

Africa

Oh and some of Australia

I don't...
This sentence
> "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?"
I don't speak amerifat what the actual fuck are you on about?
It seems like you're saying if chimpanzees and humans aren't exactly alike they can't be from a common ancestor?

(OP)
I have read the secret doctrine and other ocult groups that tells the origin of man. men dont come from fish but from god, the fish is only a symbol of a sperm. I recommend you reading books of Madam Blavatsky's books.

Now you're changing the subject. We're talking about the problem of chromosomes. Do you have even one example of a chromosomal disorder being an evolutionary advantage, in any environment? Even if you do, could you explain how that disorder would somehow become dominant in a particular population when it's the result of something going wrong and not a phenotypical expression of a certain combination of alleles?

wouldn't this imply that natural selection would select smarter and smarter members of every species and consciousness would be more widespread?

You really don't understand how evolution works.

That picture is misleading. The neanderthal branch should bend back in and get absorbed by the homo sapien branch

Unless this only shows African evolution

Not really

Half an organ is much more detrimental than slightly darker fur for instance

Say cats couldnt retract their claws, then one cat could retract some of them a little bit. It would be in constant pain and barely walk, it would die in weeks. If it had retractable claws it would gain an evolutionary advantage, but the organ is too complicated and nuanced to appear in one generation

So the only option left, animals survived with half organs, then they mutated into functional ones.

But evolution says even the smallest changes determine the survivor. So which is it?

Stop making these threads you fucking retard

This is the same logic used to justify Christian refugee agencies, fag marriage, and woman priests. As soon as you start down this road, the Bible just becomes a reflection of your emotions that you interpret as you see fit, and not the word of God to which you submit yourself.

Yes, i understand that part, but so when does a new chromosome become viable?

I've never really questioned evolution, i just never really got an explanation of how the "large" leaps are made. Like, I get how a population can become smarter or dumber or taller or niggerer, but I never understood how you go from fins to legs

>Do you have even one example of a chromosomal disorder being an evolutionary advantage, in any environment?

No. And I'm not sure what you're getting at. What kind of examples are you looking for and why? It's not particularly relevant if your aim is to disprove theory of evolution.

Evolution is just a theory, far from a fact, you should be more open minded

Have you retarded niggers ever heard of "sage"?

No, because evolution isn't an upgrade screen where it picks the best options for a species. Evolution is merely the name we give to the process of natural selection which is when a member of a species has a genetic advantage over another which gives it a higher chance of breeding. This advantage can be just about anything, ranging from a Giraffe having a longer neck or a butterfly being a certain colour. Being smarter allowed our ancestors to breed more successfully in our environment but that doesn't mean it would work for any other species.

There aren't millions of chimpanzees.

>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?

This is quite possibly the most brain-meltingly stupid thing I've ever heard. Early humans most definitely did have more in common with chimpanzees than us. It's far from a stretch to say that Australopithecus and modern chimpanzees diverged from the same animal. The ape-like qualities of human beings have become gradually less pronounced over that timespan of 4 million years, that's the whole point.

It's probably just a simplification

You really don't know what the word "theory" means in science apparently

Only one counterexample is required to disprove a claim. If you can't explain the problem
of chromosomes (which you can't) evolution is a discredited theory (which it is).

No, natural selection selects what is advantageous.
We often find intelligence arises in colder and harsher environments where it's hard to find food. Animals have to be smart both about finding and storing food.
In Africa animals tear apart carcasses as soon as they kill, down to the barest bones. In the Arctic circle most predators have dens or hiding spots to store meat for when there's no game.

Crap, I meant to reply to

You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

This is why people make fun of portugal now please delet

((((Evolution)))))
You all goys- GUYS come from Africa even tho you don't have any connection or look like Africans

Your biggest problem seems to be the notion of "large leaps"
There are none. Ever. There are only small steps one after the other.
The fins to legs progression likely started with something like pic related, it would've emerged to warm itself in the sun on dry land, or eat the plants which had expanded onto land ahead of animals (essentially a free food source at that time). It also helps that breathing air is actually a huge advantage over using gills in water, oxygen is rocket fuel for large organisms and there's no substitute for huffing down big lungfulls of the pure shit.

Chromosomal adam came from east china

We're all a bunch of gooks

There are thousands of scientific articles concerning the topic of evolution. I implore you to go read them because you're talking out your arse right now.

>Explain to me how chromosomal numbers could change between generations.
Via mutation which is a well-observed phenomenon you mongoloid leaf.

I wouldn't go that far, micro evolution is real and easy to prove but the idea that we came from fish is preposterous

Admittedly my expertise ends there, but this link seems to be addressing your question scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

But how do you go from gills to lungs?

Or i guess a better example, why after millions of years in the water, haven't any whales lost their blowholes and get some sort of gill? wouldn't even just getting that right 1 time be more than enough to fuck everything in the ocean?

Provide an example.

actually I find evolution gives us the biggest reasons to believe we are different from Africans
We developed in colder, harsher climates. Europe is a balkanised land so we developed into unique tribes, which became disparate cultures. We interbred with Neanderthals and from those vegetarians we inherited just the right amount of soft-heartedness to temper our expanding minds into tools that can be both deadly sharp and lovingly gentle.
It's religion that says we're all the same, made by the same god.

God you all never stop to amaze me with your stupidity.

So there were these times, called the ice ages right?? To be exact, the Pleistoceine(sp?). This is around the large spread of the neanderthals. The climate around this period went through extreme heat and cold conditions. A lot of previous hominins like the australopiticus(sp?) Werent developed to adapt to these envitonments and lack of food source (ie grazers instead of omnivores). The neanderthals were more adapted to the cold and their diet revolved more around meats, however, these extreme fluxuating conditions tended to wipe them out. Constant growth in the hot periods and shrinking in cold. They also were thought to be cannibals, hunted with short range tools, and didn't have the concept of brotherly love. So when modern humans came around, had more fancy long range tools, the neanderthals tried to attack and typically died out. They refused to adopt new technologies, despite them existing. Other past forms of hominins suffered from deformities upon evolution taking its way. Bipedalism, which separates us from monkeys, was evolutionary in that they could see long range over grasses, carry objects on backs, etc. Unfortunately, early bipedalism brought complications with birth canals, and through this a lot of deaths from improper births. Plus bipedalism typically meant slow and with lesser developed brains and tools not existing, you ended up as somethings dinner.

Plus natural catastrophic events hit island nations as well...

And that sir, is why you don't see many of these anymore.

To my own point, I get how the blowhole would happen, because a higher/bigger nose would help to breathe when submerged in water, but how does an entirely new organ develop?

Macro evolution is micro evolution over a very large period of time which is where you fail to understand. It can take millions of years for any significant change to happen, billions to get where we are today.

>It's religion that says we're all the same, made by the same god.

Which is true

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time, like the difference between taking 10 steps and walking a mile

But at some point it has to make the leap right?

hmm so natural selection for african animals would prioritize characteristics such as strength, speed, etc to capture prey/escape predators right?

But why wouldn't it also be advantageous to be more intelligent? further, why isn't consciousness more widespread among animals in colder and harsher environments if it is advantageous for them to be intelligent?

Go research bacteria for 5 fucking minutes and you'll find your answer.

Back to microevolution again. That's not the subject under discussion.

But can you prove that we used to be fish?

There is no leap, just very tiny steps. The "leaps" which you are referring to is us finding fossils of a creature which reached that stage.

We killed them because they were in competition with us. Chimp also killed things that were in competition with them.