Do you believe in the theory of Evolution Sup Forums ?

Do ya?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604155705.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_people_with_albinism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I reject the notion that it's somehow contrary to creationism.

Do you believe in a thing called love?

Yes, but I'm a Crypto-Pagan or Crypto Jew, I forget which

Nah, macroevolution is actually stupider than bible literalism.

isn't it very contrary to creationism, seeming as in creationism each animal was created separately

Yes. It completely influences my thinking through universal Darwinism. It can be applied to all parts of life.

No it's Jewish lies.

Anything other than creationism is the devil trying to lead humans away from the truth, i.e. Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

>we evolved from monkeys
>but we stopped evolving beyond the niggers of africa
>all else is racism
???
shekels

theory of evolution has been proven true

ops pictture suggests chimps turned into humans, which is not true

Yes, and I really hope everyone who says they don't is just being a contrarian edgelord.

But it is. This following question and Answer explains how natural selection led to humans, not divine creationism.

Q: If people evolved from apes, then why are there still apes???

- A high school student from Arkansas

Ans:

> This is a good question, and it points out a common misconception. The quick answer is that humans didn't actually evolve from modern apes. But we did both evolve from a common ancestor who happened to look more like an ape than a human.

> So where did the ape-like ancestor go? Why did this ancestor evolve into humans and modern apes?

> This is where evolution comes in. Evolution is a natural process that changes all living things over many generations.

> Evolution requires at least two things. First, we all have differences in our DNA, the instructions for making every living creature. These DNA differences lead to various eye colors, skin colors, blood types, and all of the other variation that exists between each of us.

> Some of these DNA differences don't matter. Others can be bad and cause diseases and even death. And some of these differences in DNA can help a person to live longer or stay healthier. For example, one DNA difference seems to make people more resistant to HIV and maybe also smallpox and the plague (see /ask/ask10 for more details).

> Second, evolution requires that DNA be passed from one generation to the next. This way, any survival advantage can be passed from parent to child.

> Combining these, evolution works because animals (or other living things) with beneficial DNA differences usually survive longer and are able to have more kids. And those with bad DNA changes often die before they can have kids. Over time, more and more animals have the good DNA, and fewer have the bad DNA. This is called natural selection.

> So now that we understand evolution and natural selection, how can this explain why we have humans and apes?

how can you beleive in evolution if it is just a theory (a geuss)?

If you start thinking about everything in the world being trial and error, and iterative - everything starts to make sense.

Well creationism says the world was created 6000 years ago which is not very viable in evolutionary theory.

(part 2 )

> One way natural selection can work to evolve new species is if the old species gets split into two groups. The two groups have to be separated in different environments for a long time. This is what might have happened to cause modern apes and humans to appear. The story probably went something like this.

> Sometime between eight million and five million years ago, Africa had more rain and was covered by forests. During this time, an ape-like species (our common ancestor) lived in these forests. They were quite successful and spread all over the continent.

> Then the climate began to change, the land began to dry out, and the forests began to disappear. Some of these ape-like creatures continued to live successfully in the woods. But others were forced to leave the woods and go into the open fields of grass.

> What works best for survival in the grasslands is different than what works best in the forest. Once our ancestors found themselves out of the woods, they couldn't hide from predators as well, and food was not as plentiful. Many of these ape-like creatures living in the grasslands could not survive.

> But some of these creatures did survive- those that could walk on two feet, for example. Walking on two feet may have helped them to run for longer distances to get away from predators. It also may have helped them to find food from further away and have free hands to carry it back home. Whatever the reason, those that could walk on two feet were surviving more often.

> The ape-like creatures that could walk on two feet had kids that were also more able to walk on two feet (this is controlled by one's DNA). So every generation, more and more of the surviving population could walk on two feet. The others got killed off by predators and/or starved to death.

I can't tell who's trolling in these threads, whereas I know everyone is trolling in the flat-earth ones.

Evolution explains the differences in Human groups.

(part 3)

> Over many generations (and a few million years) living in separate places, we ended up with two different species. The ones in the grasslands walked on two feet, learned to make tools and work in groups, and eventually evolved into us. Those that stayed in the forest evolved into modern apes. Of course, those in the forest also changed after many years to survive better in the forest.

> So there you have it. We didn't evolve from apes; rather, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Natural selection doesn't care about whether a species is smarter or more progressive. It only cares about whether a species can survive long enough to find a mate and have kids.

> Thus, the reason that modern apes are still around is that they have been successful at surviving in their environment. And we are still around because we have also been successful at living in our environment. Perhaps the most amazing thing is that after 5-8 million years, we still share 98% of the same DNA with our distant cousins, the modern apes!

- By Dr. Kim Matulef, Stanford University

Stop being edgy.

If it's true than why are there still monkeys?

Can you believe white people were black monkeys? hmmmm

...

No. You can drop a created something into an evolutionary system and it will evolve from there.

Take a look at what's happening to women since the pill was invented.

>Q: If people evolved from apes, then why are there still apes???

And where in the bible does it say that?

sure, however it's far from a complete understanding of the process.

It's anything but a "theory"

Your silence proves that I'm right.

i don't believe in micro-evolution, only macro-evolution.
i think everything skips the small, incremental steps and just goes for the coolest mods right away. that's how i'd do it, anyway.
also, climateology isn't a science.

seems pretty far fetched to me

Cos your wife still needs someone to fuck her.

This is the stupidest post I've ever read.
>I'd go for the coolest mods right away
Real life isnt a video game.

>burger education system

Not even once

No logic in that post. Just proves that fedoras are irrational.

that's a remarkable claim. prove it!

as a national socialist, yes ofc i do

No, its a load of 19th century pseudo-science that has been conscripted by the politically correct.

We have witnessed changes within a species, but this doesn't prove a species changes into something completely different.

Have we even witnessed bacteria changing from one species to another completely different one that functions in different conditions and feeds on a new food?

Too similar not to be closely related, in comparison to other mammals around today.
Therefore a common ancestor at some point.

Doesn't mean we're primates.

Same as humans will have a common ancestor with a horse.

Makes more sense than any of the other myths floating around.

>implying that God didn't make it seem like the earth is older to test our faith

Come to Australia loo and meet some of the aboriginals here. Guarantee you'll believe in Evolution.

>why are there still monkeys?
Read this, retard

Read

Same argument can be used for anything that is in disagreement with God. That's not empirical in the slightest.

No, I wasn't engaging in your argument, I was making a "joke". The fact that you can't spot comedy probably means you're autistic, which is one of the reasons that your tryhard trolling is pretty much being ignored by everyone.

Perhaps if you were less boring, people would answer you more.

Evolution can be NON-LINEAR! The biggest misconception about Evolution is that people assume, Evolution is LINEAR. It doesn't have to be.

No I don't.

It doesn't seem very plausible at this point given what we know about the complexity of life, genetics, and the lack of actual evidence.

Coolest mods is what is known as natural selection. user isn't exactly wrong.

Complexity proves the existence of God? Simplicity proves the existence of God.

>Too similar not to be closely related, in comparison to other mammals around today.
>Therefore a common ancestor at some point.
>Doesn't mean we're primates.
>Same as humans will have a common ancestor with a horse.

Humans are primates by definition. Horses and humans only share the closest kin of both being mammals.

There's nothing to believe in, it's fucking sience. Evolution is a fact and natural selection is by leagues the best theory to have explained how it happened. Anyone who denies that is mentally retarded.

Read this It's about having faith in God. You can't find faith in some science experiment.

I don't understand what you're babbeling on about. You're just angry that you lost the argument.

youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

WATCH THIS !

>egyptian "intellectuals"

No. It doesn't make sense at all. Example -

>Irish mother is raising children in Ireland a thousand years ago.
>Her children have bad eyesight.
>So bad that all her children die from accidents
>She has more children, which don't have eyesight problems
>Using a scientific explanation how does her body "magically" know not to do that again and then pass on that genetic memory?

Evolutionists say that weak/useless genes cause that bloodline to die out, ok fine. But how exactly does the DNA know how to mutate from past failures?

God is amazing.

Friendly reminder that the Catholic Church is not Creationist. We covered this in RCIA. Evolution, whatever the truth of it turns out to be, fits the teachings of the church. Genesis is still truth, but not literally.

>t. Catholic

Non-sequitur

I punched wall and no gold coins came out.

>I don't understand what you're babbeling on about.
That's right. Good first step.

If God is trying that hard to make the Bible sound like bullshit, then maybe it is.

It doesn't? Mutations are random.

This is the benefit of intellectual design. I'm not talking about God, but man. Man designed culture which can evolve much quicker than man can.

>the catholic church doesn't believe god created man
?
What's goign on here leaf?
It's not that the catholic church doesn't believe in creation, it's that creation"ism" has been terribly misrepresented in order to draw mental midgets like OP away from the way and the truth and the light desu fampai.

Newest studies actually shows, earliest apes or our common ancestor came from Asia(Myanmer)

> Earliest Known Human Relatives Came from Asia

> A new fossil found in Myanmar may be the earliest ancestor of humans, apes and monkeys.

> A new fossil primate, Afrasia, is related to, but more primitive than, an early African primate from Libya.

> The find strengthens the belief that anthropoids originated in Asia.

> Afrasia and other Asian anthropoids likely migrated to Africa 37-38 million years ago.

> The ancestors of humans, apes and monkeys evolved first in Asia before moving on to Africa, suggests a new fossil find from Myanmar.

> Remains of a newly found primate, Afrasia djijidae, show this monkey-like animal lived 37 million years ago and was a likely ancestor of anthropoids -- the group including humans, apes and monkeys.

> "Many people have heard about the 'Out of Africa' story of human origins and human evolution," said Christopher Beard, a Carnegie Museum of Natural History vertebrate paleontologist who co-authored a study about the fossil find in the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Our paper is the logical precursor to that, because we are showing how the anthropoid ancestors of humans made their way 'Into Africa' in the first place."

> He added, "We would not be here talking about this subject, or any other subject, if these early Asian anthropoids had not made that fateful voyage to Africa."

>Evolution, whatever the truth of it turns out to be, fits the teachings of the church.

Very Freudian of you. "Nothing contradicts my theory, it all just proves it". It's nonsense, theories are supposed to be disprovable, the further they are not disproved, the further they remain true.

(part 2)

> Beard, project leader Jean-Jacques Jaeger of the University of Poitiers, and their colleagues analyzed the tooth remains of Afrasia. They found that it is very similar to, but more primitive than, another early anthropoid, Afrotarsius libycus, recently discovered at a site of similar age in the Sahara Desert of Libya. (The term "anthropoid" is used instead of "primate" because all anthropoids are primates, but not all primates are anthropoids. Lemurs, for example, fall into that latter group.)

> The tooth size of Afrasia and Afrotarsius indicates that in life, both animals only weighed around 3.5 ounces. They likely fed mostly on insects and probably resembled small monkeys, Beard said.

> It remains a mystery as to how the small Asian animals came to Africa.

> "What we do know is that they had to cross a much larger version of the Mediterranean Sea (the ancient body of water was called the Tethys Sea) in order to go from Asia to Africa," Beard said. "At that time, Africa was an island continent like Australia is today."

> He said one possibility is that the early Asian anthropoids rafted across the Tethys on a floating island of tree-covered land that may have eroded off large riverbanks in Asia during storms and floods. Beard explained, "There have been a few examples where scientists have found animals living on mats of vegetation like this, out at sea, following a hurricane or large storm."

> Afrasia, he said, "is a close relative of humans and other living anthropoids. It is a member of an evolutionary side-branch of the monkey, ape and human family tree."

> He and his colleagues suspect that this branch eventually went extinct. It is likely that multiple Asian anthropoid species were able to colonize Africa 38-37 million years ago, with one species evolving many years later into Homo sapiens.

No and evolution would not permit that. The Endosymbiotic Theory suggests the first eukaryotic organisms came from one bacteria engulfing another creating a mutualistic relationship. Speciation does occur, i.e., seperated populations of the same species will eventually no longer be able to produce fertile offspring given enough time.

(part 3)

> So far, it appears that the close ancestors of Afrasia, which remained in Asia, also went extinct. Some anthropoids made the journey back to Asia from Africa, however. Orangutans, for example, made that trip about 10 to 15 million years ago.

> "Human ancestors left Africa much more recently than that," Beard said, explaining that the oldest fossil human relatives outside of Africa are about 1.8 million years old. "They come from the former Soviet Republic of Georgia."

> Scientists have long wondered why anthropoids just seemed to suddenly appear in Africa, with no apparent ancestry there. Afrasia's discovery helps to solve that mystery by opening up a new pre-chapter set in Asia.

> "For years, we thought the African fossil record was simply bad," Jaeger said. "The fact that similar anthropoids lived at the same time in Myanmar and Libya suggests that the gap in early African anthropoid evolution is actually real. Anthropoids didn't arrive in Africa until right before we find their fossils in Libya."

Have a (you) and stop trolling - you lost the argument and can't use logic.

I think it's more that those that survive to the next generation don't have the gene for bad eyesight. If this were to happen mid generation then who knows.

Remember that meiosis allows for genetic variation within single generations adding to the robustness of a single genetic line. It's why incest is bad because you smooth or that variation which allows bad traits to persist.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604155705.htm

No scientist is assuming that the direct ancestor of today`s humans are apes.

No Swedecuck.

I'm saying that evolution while still an incomplete theory is sound enough and the church accepts it.

Sort yourself out.

Believe is something you have in something that isn't actually proven yet. Ergo, it's not required here, since Evolution has been proven to be correct long ago. The catholic church accepts it as fact (though in their usual weaselly way of moving the goal posts).

You didn't either, you responded to a well researched comment that was backed up with science with a baseless claim

yes

creationism = retardation.

Racism comes from using the theory of evolution as justification for why their race is more superior. Asains, Anglos, Slavs, Niggers, Native Americans, Aryans, et al. Each and every "race" developed differences due to a lack of genetic drift between these populations, as a result, they begin to look different from other populations. The dominant traits for Aryans appear because these were unique traits that Africans would not have access to, vice versa. Aryans may say they are superior from their region, but it makes little sense to claim that they are superior to Africans because they 'didn't evolve.' The traits Africans have are suitable for their environment. Nonetheless we are all still the same species; we can still produce fertile offspring.

BLEACHED


...too bad the child was probably killed for organs in some voodoo witch doctor's ritual

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_people_with_albinism

Macroevolution is defined as the differences between species, microevolution is defined as the differences within a species.

Yes, Canadacuck

The Theory of Evolution isn't an incomplete theory. Explanations of biological mechanisms are there and work for predictions.
The Catholic Church just doesn't care.

Rescue your father.

I don't have to believe in what is true.

>pic
Which stage are we at now?
3 or 4?

Humans ARE apes

When did I mention God in my post? But since you brought it up.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth..... grass, trees etc.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

According to the Genesis account, while God is given credit as being the prime mover, it was the earth and the waters bringing forth the life. The mechanism for this, external to God and in the natural world is unknown. The clue is there though, the earth and the waters. I.E. chemicals. Chemicals which could be used to make DNA. DNA which could be programmed for what most people think of as evolution, or at least evolution within a "kind" whatever that means. Plus, the word "day" in Hebrew is translated as more than a 24 hour period in other places.

Point is, who really knows? None of us because we weren't there. And the argument about a detective story doesn't prove much since detectives get it wrong plenty. Neither does the "self correcting science" argument mean much to me since it is pretty much an ideology at this point instead of anything that resembles the other sciences.

God, no God, doesn't matter to me when it comes to evolution. I need to see one species evolve into another species. Something like a lizard turning into a not lizard, not another species of lizard. I need to see something like that, because until then a modern day high priest in a lab coat is just that, a modern day priest.

...

Major leaps in types of animals (macro-evolution) has never been proven. Come at me edgelords. While you are at it explain how rain + lava + a rock floating in space and billions of years = life.

If you are so smart break it down in a way my primitive un-evolved brain can understand.

Is that a grave stone?
Are you saying we all die, and then get resurrected?
Evolution proves the Bible?

You forget that way later in Genesis, God created the sun and starts way after he created light and separated it from darkness.
Surely this story must be a metaphor for how can you create light without the sun and the stars?

Do people who reject Evolution, also believe in Ancient astronauts theory? A theory that actually claims fucking outerspace Aliens created us all?

niggers did not master their domain.
even today they climb tree so that lions can't eat them.
>The dominant traits for Aryans appear because these were unique traits that Africans would not have access to
wtf is this even supposed to mean. white privilege lmao.

> Nonetheless we are all still the same species
you missed the point retard.
niggers are inferior because they had access to the same raw materials as other races yet they never passed the ooga booga stage.

ITT: uneducated people thinking they deserve an opinion on the matter.

You guys are all part of the problem.

These serious christ-cuck posters always make me angry. You don't even understand evolution then sit there and say it's wrong. Yet all you have on your side is faith.

You're retarded, gas yourself.

>I LITERALLY BELIEVE THAT BANANAS CAN BECOME ELEPHANTS

Look up habitable zone mate. Its a concept that explains how Life is possible at a certain time period at a certain position(relative to planets) in a solar system.

Though, I will admit humanity still hasn't figured out how water reached our planet for the first time. The prevailing theory on that is that a icy metoer hit us billion years ago and melted giving us h2o formed ice again and later melted, formed clouds, gave the planet rain and finally life came to be.

I didn't forget anything. I know what it says. To your point: yes indeed, light did come first, then the sun, stars, etc.

Metaphor? Maybe. Maybe the first "day" was longer than any YEC wants to admit. but again, who knows? A lot of people, creationists and evolutionists say the Bible says a lot of things it really doesn't.

I don't know why I saw Sean Connery from thumbnail image...

You're missing the point entirely, white people are not genetically superior to black people. Their success is not due to their race, and why Africa is as fucked up as it is now is because of Europe. They are the reason for Africa's dependecy on the slave trade which inhibited innovation, and the scramble for Africa aftermath resulted in racial superiority and ineffective governments.

Damn those digits...how do they know ?

Intelligent design makes much more sense than evolution

even if evolution was """"real""" it would still have to have been guided by god

t. former atheist

So how exactly does water + heat = life?

If I leave a glass of water on my kitchen counter for half a billion years will life come out of it?