You cannot be redpilled and believe the theory of evolution.
According to the theory of evolution, the creature pictured in the image is possibly my ancestor. I'm not joking, google Hadrocodium.
No amount of mutations over time is going to transform something so drastically.
Discuss.
Other urls found in this thread:
Absolutely right. All this (((atheist))) shilling has been turning people away from God's story of creation.
We went from wolves to pugs in a tiny fraction of that time.
>selective breeding
Not an argument.
You mean as opposed to what?
If evolution is true, then on the one hand, geographic why marsupials would be isolation made it more likely to evolve unusual species, but then there's no inherent reason why is Australia? It's advantageous in our climate.
humans forcibly domesticating and breeding dogs is not proof of evolution.
that is artificial, evolution is supposed to be natural.
Athiests truly are brainlets. They have faith that "science" will solve all their problems. Sad!
Also,
Recently watched "Is Genesis History?" on Netflix. Cool, quick documentary. I recommend
Throw in hundreds of millions of years. Yes artificial selection means changes are more rapid. Natural selection usually requires much longer periods of time.
Humans selecting the mates for the dogs instead of the dogs selecting mates means evolution is inconceivable?
>wolves to pugs
That required intelligent design, from us.
>Throw in hundreds of millions of years.
oh yes, the magic goddess time. Explain away all the holes in your theory by shouting "M-millions of y-years"
Explain then, why fruit flies remain fruit flies with almost no differences after 600 generations, the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution.
>All these cuckstian brainlets
SAD!
If evolution is true, why are there short men?
You do realise that proof of evolution is inscribed all over your dna right dumbass? And every rock we turn over and every fossil we have ever dug up. Ofcourse you are too stupid to know how much proof there is out there so i understand in advance that im wasting my time, its all good.
artificial selection develops desirable traits faster, yet it uses the same methods as natural selection
given enough time and we are talking millions of years here, major changes are almost bound to occur
>major changes are almost bound to occur
So, in other words, you're saying you have faith.
You believe, you don't know.
Jesus dug the fossil to prove our faith!!
The fact you used the word 'theory' in the common sense and not the scientific sense proves you are an idiot. Yes they are 2 different things. It is not up to me to educate you, educate yourself. You have no idea how stupid you sound in front of other people.
I really hate when people equate evolution to the origin of life.
>M-millions of y-years"
because after millions of years accumulative inheritable mutations will change the outlook of any species few thousand years here and there are nothing
further more, the smaller the population, the faster a set of inherited beneficial traits are bound to spread
thus a population of few thousand can change rapidly in comparison with large population
>Not intelligent enough to understand evolution
>OH! IT MUST BE FAKE!
How is it possible to be that willfully ignorant?
I know exactly the difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory.
But here's the thing, evolution does not qualify for the former. You cannot observe it. The scientific method has observation/testing as a step.
Something taking place over millions of years is not observable nor testable, and therefore it is not a scientific theory.
>No amount of mutations over time is going to transform something so drastically.
And your evidence?
Evolution is Fake News. The Bible is The Lord's truth. We live on a Created Earth.
I understand evolution, that's why I don't believe it.
where is your evidence of that? You're asking me to prove a negative.
Absolutely false. You can breed orchids in your back yard.
>environment is linked to the functions of an ecosystem
JOOOISH CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!
Yes, you are claiming that cumulative changes over a long period of time can't lead to big changes in species. Now prove it. Being a negative shouldn't stop you.
I dont know who you think you are trying to fool. Again you have no idea how stupid you sound. I am not here to debate with you, I am just here to call you an idiot.
>You believe, you don't know.
you are playing semantics here, there is no absolute knowledge as individuals are temporary occurrences, however we can make assertions with relative certainty, provided we have amassed enough information
I don't have to stick my hand in to an open fire to project what would happen even if I never did it personally. You can say I know the answer to that question with high percentage of certainty.
Evolution is a process studied by many and with relations and conclusions verified by observation. Although I will not live the needed millions of years I know it is true due to the above mentioned factors.
>pugs
>desirable traits
Evolution isn't really something you "believe in" like a faith. Rather it's something you choose to accept or not. Regardless, stop posting this bait. You post it like every day
>you can breed
aka selective breeding.
Why should I have to provide evidence against something that there is no evidence of?
That's dumb. It's like asking me to disprove the existence of a planet with water on it in the Andromeda galaxy. No, you need to prove it first.
>Im incredulous Therefore basic scientific concepts of gradual change over generations according to environmental conditions must be fake!!
Yes it is. You made the absurd assertion that accumulated mutations cannot cause drastic changes. Selective breeding demonstrates it can.
Simply aping Stefan, without understanding his meaning, will not save you.
Now defend your position honestly, if you can. Otherwise you will not convince anyone.
What do redpilled believe? Involution? (t. Evola)
because on average, shorter men live longer than taller men.
> basic scientific concepts
Geocentrism used to be a basic scientific concept.
Aristotelian physics used to be a basic scientific concept.
>desirable traits
they are by breeders in order to produce a goofy looking dog to amuse their owners, provided that traits are responsible for the fact there are more pugs in existence than wolves, I'd say the said traits are quite beneficial.
>Selective breeding demonstrates it can.
No, that's like saying that since humans create cars, that cars can be formed via natural processes. It doesn't happen.
>not knowing the jews altered human DNA to push this (((theory)))
It's been very much proven that changes in DNA can accumulate throughout generations. The logical conclusion is that changes in a long period period of time will keep on accumulating until the species is radically different. You on the other hand claim there is a limit to this process. Prove it.
You follow the Torah, you are in no position to accuse others of jewery
>It's been very much proven that changes in DNA can accumulate throughout generations.
Fruit flies apparently didn't get the memo after 600 generations.
"I'm a retard"
-OP
I believe in the Bible and trust The Lord's word.
Why are you so obsessed with fruit flies?
Not an argument.
I'm a Christian that believes in Adam and Eve, but I have a degree in Biology and the evolutionary model is not bad at all.
the analogy is way off, inheritable traits produced by mutation are the process that both natural selection and selective breeding use
selective breeding side steps the massive time periods by concentrating on the desired traits as it can isolate them, natural selection is more messy and can side steps the inheritance of beneficial traits if the carriers get to die before having offspring for example, turning natural selection in to a long arduous process that in the end however provide results, for fucks sake even if humans are the same species mere 30 000 years of genetic isolation produced major phenotype differences
Looks like we shouldn't waste our time on lab rats and go straight to human trials instead. It's what god would want.
>I'm a Christian that believes in Adam and Eve
Nonsense. The fruit flies did indeed experience changes. This experiment is always misinterpreted by creationists to fit their agenda. Also, nice try to avoid the question. Now prove that the basic mechanism of evolution has a limit that doesn't allow a species to change.
Getting redpilled is realizing God is real, getting more redpilled is when you start realizing The Bible is all true.
You're confusing "redpilled" with retarded
Evolution and natural selection is the entire basis for eugenics, nigger.
>having this shitty a conception of geological time
you're a fucking moron, OP
lmao good pic
>not bad at all
You mean it has failed to be falsified by almost every school of science which have all worked independently of one another and has been used consistently to make predictions and even unearth new discoveries, further cementing its own validity? Is that your definition of 'not bad'?
How is this Sup Forumsitics related?
Also, red pill means looking at the hard truth: that means looking at evolution as theory and religions as something you 'believe' in. Real truth aka real red pill : we can't be sure of either.
Human evolution in mind happens all the time, learning from mistakes and applying it to mind, changing the thinking.
Religion(s) claim god(s) created humans and universe. We don't really know who created or what created it for a fact since we aren't that great of beings to understand what is really going on. Science can never explain everything as science just limits things to something that we can understand.
So belief is real but religions can't ever be confirmed to be true. Guaranteed real thing that religion gives is peace of mind, which can also be achieved without believing in any of imaginary friends.
Whether evolution is true or not, that doesn't matter either as it doesn't change anything.
And acting just because thinking of one thing is true or not is idiotic as there is no logic which makes actions by cause right.
Not an argument.
>“Hadrocodium could be our distant cousin, an early mammal that existed alongside the ancestor of living mammals, or it could be our great-great grand uncle, closely related to living mammals but not in our direct lineage,” says Luo. “Or Hadrocodium could be the direct ancestor of living mammals.
>Also, red pill means looking at the hard truth
The Bible is the hardest truth out there. It is literally the Word of our Creator.
> did indeed experience changes.
such as?
Stay cucked, creationist - the Earth is 6000 years old but ask no question on the oil
>Now prove that the basic mechanism of evolution has a limit that doesn't allow a species to change.
I agree with you, it doesn't. On a long enough time scale, an organism will completely change. From each parent to offspring, some base pairs in the genetic code are essentially "typo'd" during the replication process. Most are harmless, a very small number are varying degrees of harmful or deadly (birth defects), and an even tinier few are in someway beneficial to the organism. Even though helpful mutations are the rarest form of mutation, when you start considering statistics and time, then of course helpful traits will be passed down and kept in a species. Mistakes during replication of DNA are unavoidable so the further down the timeline you go, the further away you'll get from the original species.
I haven't said anything about the age of the Earth.
I don't know how old it is and I don't think humans can know exactly that.
But that's entirely irrelevant to what we're discussing.
sag swing salad e
salad
We have already been told how old the Earth is. It was created roughly 6000 years ago.
I prefer christians to sjws but just dont pretend any of your shit has any substance to it. It is merely a faith you have chosen to adopt.
Lactose tolerance only being found in certain types of people even though humans are mammals and lactose only comes from mammal's milk isn't blatant evidence of evolution?
>what is radiometric decay
>what is physics
Underrated
lol nah. Believe me. I was a full on evolutionary biologist. I still accept it as an intellectually satisfying model for explaining the origins of life. The mechanism of evolution, however, isn't proof of origins. For example, we believe the universe is 14 billion years old based on tracing back certain mechanisms of the universe we can observe to their natural point of origin (like the universe's constant expansion). However, if something were created, then of course it would "scientifically" appear much older than it was. Think of it like God willing something into existence from its half-way point. There is no way of you actually knowing when something came to be unless you were there yourself and experienced it.
water never curves LOL
>I was a full on evolutionary biologist
>Doesn't understand the distinction between EVOLUTION and ABIOGENESIS
Where did you get your degree from and was it a catholic "university"?
Fruit flies remained almost the exact same because those fruit flies who changed too much were not fit for survival. And you even said "almost no difference", which means that you are admitting that they did change naturally, and as you said yourself "evolution is supposed to be natural". These small changes are you speaking of are natural and therefor evolution according to your own definition of evolution.
University of California Berkeley
Reading The Bible is my choice, it's not part of the curriculum.
"Evolutionism" is a theory Goldberg used to see if the cattle would buy on any retarded shit he came up with. "Hey Schlomo, we need to make the cattle believe fags and niggers are equals, so we can force them into society and collapse it, making us rullers", "yeah, but I dunno if they gonna believe any retarded shit that we pull down their throats ", "wanna bet?" And that's it, you are actually a fish that turned into a rat that turned into a monkey that turned into you, and everyone was once a nigger btw, but saying niggers are unevolved is racist u biggot. That's the way it goes.
don't act like evolution and abiogenesis aren't connected.
The theory of evolution is built on the idea of universal common descent. In other words, every living thing on Earth can be traced back to a single organism at some point in the past.
Yes, evolution can be observed directly you imbecile. There is a documentary on youtube where a species of lizard is literally changing the color and pattern on its skin over a few generations. It is observable because they have footage of the before and after.
Eat a cock, christcuck.
>Doesn't understand the distinction between EVOLUTION and ABIOGENESIS
wut? Evolution's beginnings were abiogenesis. You're retarded if you don't think so.
Did you drop out or something?
I'm just confused as to how someone who studied evolutionary biology at an ivy league university also believes that the whole bible is true.
I'm not saying they aren't, but they're two different fields with two different for a reason. This dude is talking about 14 billion years ago and the origins of the universe, not evolution.
In a set of ABC, Abiogenesis is the study of where A comes from. Evolution is the theory of how we go from B to C
> that they did change naturally,
Not in any significant way. They didn't start developing characteristics of reptiles, for instance.
> There is a documentary on youtube where a species of lizard is literally changing the color and pattern on its skin over a few generations.
Slight change inside a species doesn't equal one species becoming another species.
Come back to me when these lizards begin to develop characteristics of say, birds.
It's ludicrous to suggest that changes in skin color prove unicellular to multicellular transition, or reptile to mammal, or any other fanciful shift.
The real red pill is realising you're nothing special, you're not created specifically, there is no god and there is no afterlife.
After you die that's it.
Religion is comfy blue pill I want to be true but sadly it's not.
The whole point of red v. blue pill is uncomfortable truth v. sweet lies.
>uncomfortable truth
The uncomfortable truth is that we will have to answer for what we've done in this life.
It's a sweet lie to suggest that we can do whatever we want and face no consequences for it.
>i don't understand science
>this means science is fake
kill yourself
Horseshoe crabs
If I didn't understand evolution I'd go right along believing it.
After all, that's what we're taught to believe growing up. Until you start to question it, and it all falls apart.
>Did you drop out or something?
>I'm just confused as to how someone who studied evolutionary biology at an ivy league university also believes that the whole bible is true.
Nope. Not a dropout. Like I said, I believe in the mechanism of evolution. We use it to trace back to the origins of life, and this is fine, I used to subscribe to this as well. But if God created something with mechanisms in place, backwards engineering the process to a point of origin would be a scientific trapping. God magically putting all the pieces in their place before "starting" the universe is not scientific, so we understandably reject it outright, but if you believe in God, you don't write it off completely. Obviously, I'm not vocal about my opinions, but I also know I'm not the only one. There are many scientists that do exceptional work while holding personal beliefs of God.
the coelacanth is another great example
Nobody is saying you can't believe in a god and be a scientist. I'm just confused as to how, knowing what you claim to know, you can say things like the great flood and Noah's ark are true.
>[CITATION NEEDED]
Also I'm a good person I'd say. I don't care if I go to some kind of hell because I lived up to my standards.
You're not indimidating. At all.
>Also I'm a good person I'd say.
By what standard?
I breed reptiles and bugs for a living (well part of my living) and I have done some serious pondering over my work over the last few years.
I have bred my own morphs after much trial and error and even, I believe made the offspring of my original line of some reptiles more docile.
Things like colour, size and shape aren't hard to change within limits. Something I find is the colour has to be a mix of existing colours available to the creature, and the size has great limits. Someone mentioned pugs as an example and pugs are heavily deformed, struggling to breath and their eyes are being pushed from their sockets. Much is the same with reptiles, if you push the creatures limits in size and proportion it will suffer in life and sometimes come out dead.
When it comes to real change in a creature, I seriously doubt that I could ever make any of my reptiles, even the aquatic ones, grow gills for example. Even the excuse of millions of years or more I cannot see such a change happening by it's own mutation, let alone by selective breeding. How would a reptile end up with a hand, or the ability to stand upright? What if I wanted a reptiles scales to be more like that of a fish?
I have come to 2 answers which I have thought about for many years:
1: Evolution had many starting creatures which then branch out into the variation we see within their limits (rather than just cells) supporting the idea of creation.
2: That there is something obvious I have missed in my years of this work that would make the idea that gills can become lungs given enough time is possible.
Obviously 2 is a reasonable answer but I keep going back to 1 since as of now it is most logical and sure in the context of my work.
I will continue to experiments and it is my dream that one day my son will take over and continue my work, pushing the limits on these beautiful creatures and his son and so on. Who knows, in 10 thousand years we could discover something amazing.
By basic human standard.
I get that, and believe me, it took me a long time to get to the point I'm at now. But faith in God comes with its rewards, and the more you're involved in science, the more you'll see how many times we've been wrong about things, even though we had good reasons for believing in things that turned out to be untrue.
To clarify answer 1, say god had made just 1 or a few different monkeys, and from there more came about through variation. The same with turtles and guppies and reptiles and elephants and so on. Rather than it all branching from one source of cells (or a few).
Otherwise I cannot see how such drastic change is possible. No matter how slow. Unless somebody can show me this change gradually somehow.
>I don't believe evolution because it makes me feel icky and it's hard to understand
Yeah, you're redpilled alright.