Atheists unironically believe this

>atheists unironically believe this

Why are people against institutional lies like homosexuality and feminism but are so adamantly accepting of evolution? Why would you trust these people when they tell you WE WUZ APES N SHEEEIT if you don't believe them when they tell you that homosexuality is perfectly healthy/natural, or that transgenderism is normal?

seriously, take off the blinders and look at it. Do you honestly believe that every living thing on Earth is descended from some bacteria that came into being from nothing?

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencealert.com/scientists-have-grown-dinosaur-legs-on-a-chicken-for-the-first-time
bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur
saps.org.uk/saps-associates/browse-q-and-a/473-how-much-dna-do-plants-share-with-humans-over-99
archive.is/bJ6Sb
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

You might not like it evolution and Darwinism is everywhere and is almost always applicable. It's the reason people who live in the Sahara desert are dark and people who live in Scandinavia aren't.

...

youre using a strawman.

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

these changes happen over millions of years thats the reason why we can tell apart races.

>millions of years

So in other words, it's not observable and therefore does not adhere to the scientific method

We observe microevolution all the time. Macroevolution is just years and years of microevolution.

Is creationism observable?

>So in other words, it's not observable and therefore does not adhere to the scientific method


it is observible microevolution like metomorpisis and we can trace the comon ancestors from other species to their current counterparts.

Thank you for confirming me views of religion.

atheists are dumb. dont waste time with htem

it's actually these antrhax-like bugs that can effectively hibernate for millions of years in space. evolution doesn't preclude God.

We've reverse engineered chicken in a lab to show their prior traits in evolution;

These include sharp teeth, scales, claws and different pupils.

>I deny something that has tangible proof because it btfo's my skykike narrative(which to this day has never presented any tangible proof of what it says and all of it's supposed historical evidence is consistently proven to be a joke)
You larping cunts think you'll win but you won't, we btfo you faggots in /new/ just like we kicked out the red scum and we'll fucking do it again just like we are /sg/

do you have a citation for that claim?

>I don't believe in European science because this Jewish creation myth from the iron age told me different

I unironically look like that guy on the right, just blond.

No dumber than religious people. Seriously you all believe in these religions just because they're there and popular.

What is this image even trying to convey? Needs a lil touch up to be compelling as both bait and an argument.

...

>Macroevolution is just years and years of microevolution.

yeah, because bears having different colors of fur is the same thing as microbes turning into animals turning into man

why are fedoracucks so gullible?

i guess today is forced meme day

When I was a little kid I was told hastily what so-called "evolution" was, and what I imagined for years was a monkey magically turning into a human.

This is what I think a lot of religious people still think evolution is. I don't hate religion, or religious people, but evolution and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Look up evolutionary creationism.

As opposed to a guy magically making everything out of nothing?

>monkey magically turning into a human.

that is a misrepresentation, yes, but it's not far off from what evolution theory implies.

It does imply that humans descended from an ape-like ancestor

The very reason I reject evolution is because I understand it.

Just google "chicken dinosaur".

sciencealert.com/scientists-have-grown-dinosaur-legs-on-a-chicken-for-the-first-time

bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur

So, what you're telling me is, if kids with rare genetic defects, like lets say that spotted skin disease, were considered the hottest people in the world, and everyone wanted their babies, that a larger population of spotted skin people would not be born?

Then they start breeding with each other, and interbreeding with others, and eventually MOST people have spotted skin.

That is what evolution is, small defects selected by nature, becoming more and more common. So if something makes you live longer, or have more sex, that thing will likely become more common. Why does that sound impossible to you?

There's no point arguing m8. They'll accept it when they're ready or not. Evidence is everywhere.

>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SMALL CHANGES DO NOT ACCUMULATE OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS

Small changes happening frequently over a long period of time could eventually lead to larger permanent changes based on the circumstances. It's such a simple concept that they teach it to middle schoolers. How can you be so autistic to not comprehend it?

so at best you have to admit that this is something you cannot observe.

>Small changes happening frequently over a long period of time could eventually lead to larger permanent changes

No amount of time and small changes is going to lead from a single-celled organism birthing every living species on Earth.

You can claim this but you have no observation or evidence to back it up. The scientific method requires observation/testing.

Wrong. There's no link. That's where evolution falls apart. There is no gradual change in the fossil records. There's no fossil records of one animal slowly turning into another.
Oh they've tried to fake it. They've tried to put skeletons together wildly to show and prove a gradual change. Yet those have always been debunked and rather quickly.
Evolution is the change of one species into another species. This is to be a slow change. There is no fossil records in any species showing that slow change. We instead have individual species in the fossil records. Not one species slowly changing into another.
Since this has never been found evolution has yet to be proven and STILL remains a scientific theory. A theory that's been around so long that if it had been true? We'd have found proof by now. We have not.

this is what a clear misunderstanding of evolution looks like. honestly just off yourself christfag or just go back to reading your fairy tails

>a clear misunderstanding of evolution looks like

How so? Birds are claimed to be descended from dinosaurs.This is undeniable.

also
>(You)

as for macro vs microevolution, look at it this way.

The new spotted humans in one area find a new food source, but it is deep inside small holes that only some people can reach because they have small hands. Small hands become more common in this region after a few generations because the people with small hands get more of the delicacy, and thus more money, making them more attractive.

Now you have small handed spotted humans. Then they decide unanimously that longer necks are hot as fuck, after a few generations, you have long necked, small handed, spotted humans.

Already they hardly look like modern humans. They look like a weird giraffe/human hybrid with tiny hands. Take this process over another million years, more and more changes accruing and they will be even farther from modern humans.

That's natural selection

Oh it's very deniable as I wrote above there is no fossil records showing dinosaurs turning slowly and gradually into birds. We have fossil records instead of birds....and dinosaurs. No inbetween. It's called " The missing link ". Because the link is missing. There is no linking of species in the fossil record. Evolution is still theory. It has no been proven. And if it hasn't been proven by now? By fossil records? And it has not...then it's probably a false assumption. Darwin was wrong.

Do you believe in the all-knowing, almighty flying spaghetti monster high in the sky?

>Oh it's very deniable

I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying that birds ARE descended from dinosaurs, I was saying that proponents of evolution believe such.

we share dna with everything that lives on this planet, theres the proof
>AAAAAARRRRRRRRR GEEERRGGHHG GOD GAVE EVERYONE SAME DNA!!!!!!!
>DEEEERRRRRRFHHH SHUT UP SMALL CHANGES DO NOT ACCUMULATE SHUTUP SHUTUP!!!!!11!!

>AAAAAARRRRRRRRR GEEERRGGHHG GOD GAVE EVERYONE SAME DNA!!!!!!!
>DEEEERRRRRRFHHH SHUT UP SMALL CHANGES DO NOT ACCUMULATE SHUTUP SHUTUP!!!!!11!!

How do you expect someone to take you seriously?

>we share dna with everything that lives on this planet,

that doesn't prove anything though. Species that have a common Creator would obviously have things in common.

Can you fucking retard stop confusing the idea of speciation through natural selection with the idea of abiogenesis?

Evolution is not the theory that "life came from nothing" you fucking unbelievable cretin.

Why would I trust either side?
None of you have compelling arguments.
One is built purely on speculation, the other is built based on what a book says.

so you are literally saying
>AAAAAARRRRRRRRR GEEERRGGHHG GOD GAVE EVERYONE SAME DNA!!!!!!!

Mutation and adaptation to environment do occur by species. We see this constantly. We have never seen an example of evolution in the fossil record however because it doesn't exist. It's called the " missing link ".
There is no evidence, no skeleton of an animal has ever been found, that proves it was in the middle of a slow evolutionary change. Our fossil records should be FULL of this. Chalk full. But we can't find ONE single valid example. Not one. Why?
Because evolution, the changing of one species into another, slowly, over a great period of time, doesn't happen. It's never happened. We can't prove it. Because there's no skeleton of an animal we can find that makes us say, " THERE IS OUR HALF DINOSAUR HALF BIRD CREATURE! FINALLY! ". It does not exist. Darwin was wrong.

lol le flying spaghetti monster xDDDD absolutely rekt hahaha good one.

>ei se lelu

>AAAAAARRRRRRRRR GEEERRGGHHG

>AAAAAARRRRRRRRR GEEERRGGHHG
>DEEEERRRRRRFHHH

>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

What makes you think that behaving like an incredibly obese redditor will help your arguments?

you blow in from retardville buddy?

>We have never seen an example of evolution in the fossil record however because it doesn't exist.
>There is no evidence, no skeleton of an animal has ever been found, that proves it was in the middle of a slow evolutionary change.

>American education

what the fuck are you expecting us to find? lizards with fish tails?
literally every single organism that has ever existed was in the middle of a slow evolutionary change.

>Be American
>Have AMERICAN EDUCATION
>Think that species remain the exact same for a period of time, then decide that they should evolve

i know this is bait but many dinosaurs had feathers and laid eggs. the potrayal of dinosaurs in popular media as giant reptiles is often inaccurate.

>so at best you have to admit that this is something you cannot observe.

We have "observed" it in microorganisms recently. But still, Macroevolution happens over thousands of year. Ok to give you a comparison, we can't sit and observe the formation of stars since it takes several million years for them to form but we know they're there.

>No amount of time and small changes is going to lead from a single-celled organism birthing every living species on Earth.

That's not the chronology of evolution at all, you oversimplified it badly.


>You can claim this but you have no observation or evidence to back it up

There's a lot of evidence, DNA, Fossils, Embryo development, etc.

wow nice counterargument biro

I'm actually trying to help you.
You think typing
"BLEALRLAEJOPIGUJGJIKHSDGKLASHUZFGLUI" is going to help you in any way?

You do understand what evolution means right? It simply means change. Jesus christ the fact that our demographic changes mean we are literally watching evolution happen.

No this doesn't mean its better to blanda upp. There is no end point for evolution; no goal. It's just a continuous reaction to circumstance and pressures. We are not the same as a species as were 12,000 years ago - thanks to agriculture.

You could possibly argue against natural selection as the mechanism for change however. But to argue against change itself is the intellectual equivalent of stabbing your own eyes out

enjoy your psychosis creationistfag

Dead wrong. " The missing Link " is still a valid term used in the fossil field to describe the non existence of fossil remains proving evolution. Evolution is still an unproven scientific theory.
It is still regarded as theory.
And it should have been proven by now. We have immense fossil records, yet not one single find has proven evolution.
Google " Missing Link ". Educate yourself.
Your fish tail lizards were their own species, and existed about 80 million years ago and are now extinct.

I don't really care about this argument.
I do care about people behaving like redditors, though.
So tell me, you think typing "IOYUGWHASLIUYASGSLIUHI" is going to help you in any way?

> Transitional fossils don't actually exist.

Even assuming what you're saying about fossils is right(it isn't since this point is only about changing the goalposts when somebody responds) the DNA evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

>STILL remains a scientific theory

So is gravity and germs.

>Even assuming what you're saying about fossils is right(it isn't since this point is only about changing the goalposts when somebody responds) the DNA evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

What I'm saying is right. There is no fossil record proving evolution and it is necessary to proof. DNA similarities are not enough.
EVOLUTION is the changing of one species into another over gradual time. This is easy to prove.
Fossil records. Easy. They don't exist. They are necessary to prove the theory. It would be certain proof. They have no found it.
Similar DNA is found in everything.
We share A TON of DNA with plants. And every other creature. Did you know that? That doesn't mean we evolved from them.
saps.org.uk/saps-associates/browse-q-and-a/473-how-much-dna-do-plants-share-with-humans-over-99

>There is no fossil record proving evolution

We have found tons of them though. They're called transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx is the most famous one, but we have tons

>We share A TON of DNA with plants. And every other creature. Did you know that?

Yes that's because of the last universal common ancestor, that's what I'm trying to get at.

Whats the alternative? If you're able to believe in magic you may also believe in evolution.

>Whats the alternative?

That humans and all life on Earth was designed by an intelligent Creator.

How else do you explain consciousness? How could consciousness evolve? How could something go from not thinking to thinking?

We wuzn't apes, he share a common ancestor with apes. :)
*chugs 50 gallon drum of tea*

What if that creator did it by evolution?

fuck off with this straw-man

acknowledgement of evolution and belief in god are not mutually exclusive.

" Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely "

Yeeeeea.....forgive me if I'm not convinced. Really.

>That humans and all life on Earth was designed by an intelligent Creator.

If you bring paranormal stuff into the equation everything is possible, including us living in a computer simulation.

>How could consciousness evolve?

Density and size of our brain.

Evolution makes sense, but the Out of Africa theory is bullshit.

archive.is/bJ6Sb

yes. give some arguments or eat shit you low iq faggot
kys

Nonetheless, these transitional fossils serve as evidence to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as conserved traits are proven to survive the test of time. This also supports evolution in a way that is shows gradual change in traits of species over generations due to change in living conditions.

That's no fossil poof either or proving evolution. It proves adaptation and mutation. Nothing more.

>Density and size of our brain.

you're going to have to explain further, because that does nothing to explain where consciousness comes from.

Got some heavy autism from this thread.
Mostly from OP

>sodomite flag

What list, what are you quoting?

>adaptation and mutation. Nothing more

That's litteraly macroevolution just factoring thousands of years.

It does, conciousness is the awarness of ourselves and our surroundings. The bigger and more dense a brain is the more developed this sense is.

A fly does not know what it is and where it is, however some monkeys and apes pass the mirror test showing some level of consciousness.

Knew that would trigger you. Not even gay.

It's pretty simple: consciousness is a biological phenomenon that arises from the brain -- different magnitudes of consciousness appear with brainmass relative to size.

Go ahead and remove someone's brain and see if they're conscious.

"Here in this petri dishwe can observe how bacteria have changes in DNA during reproduction and after some generations in an altered environment those more suited to the new ambient survive, resulting in a clear evolution of the bacteria we picked"
>MICROEVULTION DOESN'T PROVE MACROEVOLUTION REEEEEEEEEEE IT'S VARIATION! IT CAN'T CHANGE IN MAJOR WAYS!
"Here we can see that after years of selective breeding, dogs can branch into breeds depending of how those dogs were systematically selected, they show radical changes in morphology and some aspects of their internal anatomy after enough generations, we call them breeds."
>SO?! A SQUID CAN'T TURN INTO A DOG! EVILUTIONIST BFTO! GOD CREATED ALL!
"After applying what we know of this observed phenomena and correlating it with the fossil record and all the transitional fossils in related species in conjunction with the genetic information we gathered so far we can see that evolution is pretty much possible and expected"
>IT'S ALL FAKE! ALL FOSSILS ARE THE SAME! THE DEVIL PUT THEM THERE! FUCKING LIAR SCIENTISTS TRYING TO STEAL FROM US! Please donate to Kent Hovind to help him pay his lawyer fees and spread the good word AMEN

>The bigger and more dense a brain is the more developed this sense is.

but that doesn't explain how such a sense came about.

also, blue whales have bigger brains than humans, so by your logic they should be more intelligent/aware. But that's diverging from the real issue.

so again, how does evolution explain consciousness?

refer to the above.

>hates gays
>hates evolution
Evolution says gays are an inferior animal so why are you so dissonant?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
Bigger in relation to body mass, not overall

Step down, Bible-thumping Bobby Joe
Creationism is so fucking retarded.

Anyone with half a brain realised they need to accept defeat against overwhelming evidence, and maybe suggest that evolution was guided by a divine hand. There's no debating evolution.

>resulting in a clear evolution of the bacteria we picked"

bacteria give rise to bacteria, they don't give rise to non-bacteria.

>Here we can see that after years of selective breeding, dogs can branch into breeds depending of how those dogs were systematically selected,

They're still dogs. They won't ever produce non-dogs.

Also, selective breeding is ARTIFICIAL. That does not occur naturally.

>blue whales have bigger brains than humans

I had that in mind when I wrote my post hence I added density. An elephant has more synapse and brain size than that of a human but its not as dense.

Grab em. Lot offered them his daughters. This makes them gay. Strange flesh is not angels it is men. How'd they reproduce again and why is san francisco still around? Ronaldo>you
He reproduced thru surrogacy. Was king david a sodomite? How about the born eunuchs? The centurion? Ruth and naomi? You know nothing

...

...

>lgbt history
Straight history is better

there are infinite missing links.
say that an archeologist in the future find your skeleton and your grandsons skeleton, but not your sons skeleton. boom your son is a missing link in your lineage

>overwhelming

> I don't fully understand existence
> I'll just believe what these scribblings in this book say
Being this retarded.
If your beliefs can only be reaffirmed by the same source that provides those beliefs, you probably need to look elsewhere. Nothing in any holy scripture from any religion can be objectively verified from any perspective that exists outside of that religion.
> Tfw people worship books
> The cat in the hat is just as valid as any religious text

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

>Bacteria give rise to bacteria
what are archaea
what is syntrophic model
what is planctomycetes
what is viral eukaryogenesis
what are colonial organisms
>They're still dogs
We classify them as dogs as long as they can still breed between each other, once they can't due to extreme branching they'll be different species.
>Also, selective breeding is ARTIFICIAL. That does not occur naturally
what is natural selection?
what you're telling me the unfit die?
Also, if artificial selection can happen, so can natural selection by the fact that the change process STILL HAPPENS

>selective breeding is ARTIFICIAL
>what is human relationships
Kek

if 2 dog populations are kept separate long enough, eventually they will not be able to interbreed
boom a new species

...

...

>what is human relationships
>human relationships
>HUMAN

so then why can Europeans breed with Australian aboriginals? They've been separated for a very long time.

>repeats himself
It's ok. Christ said one thing. You say another. Trump grabs them. Which is actually sodomy. The words gay fag and homo never existed back then. Read the original languages

>You)
as for macro vs microevolution, look at it this way.

Absolutely all of the evidence is for microevolution, and absolutely no evidence exists for macro.