You are not "red-pilled" if you believe in evolution.
bbc.com
If you truly believe humans descended from this then you have swallowed the Kool-Aid.
Why are people so willing to question the government/elite on multiculturalism, sexuality, etc. but so blindly go along with them on mankind's origins?
Other urls found in this thread:
theflatearthsociety.org
ucmp.berkeley.edu
bbc.com
losangeles.cbslocal.com
news.usc.edu
youtu.be
twitter.com
>what is a transistional fossil?
What is HERV's
In addition to this, you cannot be red pilled if you believe in a spherical earth or jesus.
Literally worshiping a jew, rather than the based white ancestors and OUR REAL gods
>some bones look similar therefore WE WUZ BACTERIA N SHEEIT
ucmp.berkeley.edu
Feel free to write a paper on why evolution is false, get it published and collect your nobel prize :)
schizophrenia strikes again
>bbc.com
This is either a tired troll or a moron. Either way it's still a terrible post.
Git gud.
...
>implying any and all dissent isn't suppressed
Professors have lost their jobs for even uncovering evidence against it.
This guy lost his job because he found a dinosaur fossil had soft tissue:
Saged. You don't seem understand how life works.
You can't believe white people are genetically superior if you don't believe in evolution.
>You can't believe white people are genetically superior if you don't believe in evolution.
If whites are genetically superior then why do East Asians have higher IQs?
They dont, american east asians do because of a highly selective immigration program. If you were to poll the average Vietnamese dirt farmer they would come up sub-retarded.
Why are you communist fucks the only atheists on Sup Forums?
...
Actually, the top countries ranked by IQ and math&science test scores are Asian.
This is a slide thread.
>anything I don't like is a slide thread
Never go full retard, I bet you think god is a magical sky wizard too and magic/miracles are a thing.
I bet you think when you close your eyes and mumble to yourself some ethereal dude is listening and going "Okay Bob sure thing"
You're a fucking barbarian who doesn't even understand the concepts you pedal, you are not red pilled.
>I've been found out!
Attacking another belief doesn't make yours correct. Try harder.
I believe that god created us through evolution
If evolution does not happen then how did we get here? I am not 100% convinced about evolution but at least it seems plausible.
Question it all you want but you'll be hard pressed to find a theory thats more plausible. Don't say religion, that falls more into the belief category. It isn't a theory.
I for one think that if evolution is false then nearly everything we "know" is also false as a consequence. If evolution is false then how did the first human arise? There must have one day been zero humans, and the next day a nonzero number of humans. If weren't procedurally generated from bacteria then things like the big bang theory suddenly makes a lot less sense.
i'm not sure if the catatonic denial of empirical, irrefutable fact -- by fretful godtards, in their death throes, grasping at any tenuous straw of validity for their child-abused-in delusions -- is more pathetic or pathos-inducing...
either way, it's entertaining!
>OP unironically believes god created this
>every human is retarded except me :)
Options;
1-Descended from a lazy rat himself descending from a ugly fish out of nothingness
2-Created by a crazy all powerfull god with super-power that created rats,human and fish with strange twisted rules for us to follow or be punish forever and himself come out of nothingness.
>but muh conspiracy
If you actually read your article then you might have read the bit about iron allowing the tissue to remain. I love how you won't propose your own model to explain the diverisity of life but instead just shitpost about evolution.
This is why no one likes you. You give away the troll with the namefag
Better yet OP believes god created this monstrosity, platybelodon.
No, scientific matters that were closed 200 years ago are slide threads. You really, genuinely should kys even if you are white, which is doubtful.
Why don't you believe in evolution?
Even my religious family believe in evolution
>Don't say religion, that falls more into the belief category. It isn't a theory.
Neither is evolution. There is no evidence of life spontaneously forming, no evidence of said life becoming every other living thing. How do you explain the supposed transition from prokaryote to eukaryote? How do you explain complex organs like the eye? It's all imagined.
Also, the Big Bang theory really doesn't make sense when you actually look at it. There are a number of holes in it. Before you attack the messenger, note that these are commonly identified holes. There are Wikipedia pages on them. But yet somehow this "scientific theory" gets passed on as fact.
The Horizon Problem. Google it. No matter how far in any direction astronomers look, the universe appears homogenous. These regions are separated such that information could not have been shared between them because there hasn't been enough time.
The flatness problem. The universe is generally accepted to be flat (minimal curvature). Essentially, a very specific value for the density of matter/energy is required for the Universe to be this flat. The current density of the Universe is very close to this value. However, this value changes, meaning that the further back to the beginning of the Universe you go, the closer this density approaches this key value, so close that the difference is essentially insignificant. This is seen as evidence of fine-tuning.
That's not very scientific of you.
It was also once considered "scientifically closed" that the Earth was orbited by the Sun.
I don't believe in evolution for the same reason that I don't believe in a flat earth. It doesn't make any sense.
This is EXACLY why i am coming to Sup Forums rarer and rarer, the delusion here is beyond my understanding, how can anyone in modern age (who can think logicaly) denay evolution?
Don't you ever lay your DIRTY eyes on my anime ever again
> how can anyone in modern age (who can think logicaly) denay evolution?
You, 1000 years ago:
"How can anyone in the modern age deny geocentrism?"
>mfw gullible ppl start doubting scientific fact because of shitposting
>scientific fact
Geocentrism was once considered scientific fact. They even had evidence for it.
Obviously, that was shown to be nonsense.
Which part doesn't make sense?
Theyre trolling you m80 and its working wonders
>fact
>no evidence
You mean like how sheep are selectively bread to be fluffy?
>big bang makes no sense
Then leave science to the adults and go back to 9gag.
>universe is flat
Conservation of angular momentum plus gravity
How would prokaryotes become eukaryotes?
How would complex systems like the eye evolve? Would parts just sit there functionless because the other parts needed for a functioning eye hadn't evolved yet?
How would sexual reproduction develop? Why and how do you go from asexual to sexual?
Even if life somehow assembled itself, how did it learn to replicate?
sheep can be bred to be fluffy, but no one has ever bred a sheep from a goat
>how prokaryotes and eukaryotes evolved
I do not have an intellectually honest answer at the current moment
>irreducible complexity
Vestigial organs are no stranger to life ie male nipples and whale hip bones
>muh kinds
Hippos and whaleshave plenty of transitional fossils, archeoptrx is a thing you know :)
>You mean like how sheep are selectively bread to be fluffy?
You destroy your own argument. Selective implies intelligence. Also, working with what's already there is far different than new material being created.
>then leave science to the adults
The Big Bang contradicts science. Are you just going to ignore the glaring holes?
>conservation of angular momentum plus gravity
You're going to have to explain, because that doesn't make do anything to solve the problem.
>le male nipples
what is sexual dimorphism
>le hips
they're for reproduction
news.usc.edu
fossils are only proof something died, not that it had children
>he dosen't understand the difference between natural and artificial selection
What glaring holes
Minute physics has a great video on the subject
youtu.be
By the deconstructive jewish logic that this controlled opposition operates on, you cannot prove that the sun is hot because hot is a relative term and ascribing it to temperature that you deem high enough to be considered hot is simply a subjective opinion.
In short, everything is spooks, nothing is real, nothing matters.
This is the path that people go down when they get too disillusioned for their own good. They become overly critical of things they are not equipped to be overly critical of (through no fault of their own sometimes).
The red pill has disastrous side effects if your proverbial immune system can't handle it.
>he dosen't know what vistigular means
>I do not have an intellectually honest answer at the current moment
So in other words you have faith that this happened?
>vestigial organs like male nipple and whale hip bones
The male nipple actually raises questions about evolution. Are you suggesting that men once could breastfeed? Or that men evolved from women, losing this ability to lactate?
The whale hip bone has function. Even evolution researchers admit this now. Google it, Harvard admits it.
you dont have to explain how it happened to believe it happened, i cant explain how simple life forms became complex life forms, but I believe they did, why?, because otherwise I would have to believe that complex life forms dont originate from simpler life forms, and this sounds less beliveable than its opposite
>you have faith
Im not as informed on cellular biology , so maybe?
>are you suggesting men did x
Actually no male nipples come from the delayed effect of the y chromosome, bad example for vistigular organs, a better example is the wings on emus and the eyes on some salamanders
you dont have to explain how it happened to believe it happened, i cant explain how simple life forms became complex life forms, but I believe they did, why?, because otherwise I would have to believe that complex life forms dont originate from simpler life forms, and this sounds less beliveable than its opposite
if you want to play the agnostic card, good for you, but I dont see why you would waste your time debating us when you could be studying serious biology instead...unless evolution is secondary and what you strive for is debate
The glaring holes I just listed to you.
In case you missed them, here they are again:
The horizon problem.
The flatness problem.
In addition, the monopole problem. Or maybe the antimatter problem.
>video
You can't equate the solar system to the universe at large. it has nothing to do with gravity, it has everything to do with a very specific parameter. Look it up.
vistigular isn't even a word, but here's the definition for vestigial: (of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution
those hip bones still have a function
ok property, enjoy being a stirnercuck
christ I hope you're trolling
he is just in that "I question everything" phase
not an argument
So in other words, you take it by faith that those things happened.
Also, I'm not agnostic. I believe we were created. As to the exact processes that were used, I don't know, and I don't know if we'll ever know. I'm debating you because I want you to actually think about these things and not just accept them as fact because some guy in a "science" TV show said them.
>How would prokaryotes become eukaryotes?
Look up endosymbiotic theory. The endomembrane system of eukaryotes is thought to have risen from the bacterial membrane of the progenitor bacteria that gave rise to plastids and mitochondria.
>How would complex systems like the eye evolve?
This topic has been explored thoroughly, try doing a simple google search. Light sensitive cells provide an evolutionary advantage just by being able to detect the presence of light or darkness.
>Would parts just sit there functionless because the other parts needed for a functioning eye hadn't evolved yet?
No, the early versions of sight-related cells could have a different function from later versions. For example, wings are thought to have evolved from rudimentary "gliders" that allowed animals to survive long falls more than other animals who lacked the gliders.
>How would sexual reproduction develop? Why and how do you go from asexual to sexual?
Sexual reproduction is highly advantageous because it allows for greater genetic diversity in a population, which increases the rate of evolution. Having more traits to select from == having a higher chance of advantageous traits arising from random mutations and recombination events in a populatiton.
>Even if life somehow assembled itself, how did it learn to replicate?
You happen to be posting from a planet where life learned to replicate, but there are 1,000,000,000,000,000+ worlds where it didn't happen. See: anthropic principle. Also, cells which pass on the ability to replicate are obviously going to stick around longer than cells that are genetic dead weight.
>If you truly believe humans descended from this then you have swallowed the Kool-Aid.
I totally know what you mean, Jesus proves we have more in common with palm trees and starfish.
>I believe in infinite universes
nice religion
>Read a book
>Jump off a bridge
Pick one, I have no time for you.
>horizon
What is the inflation period
>flatness problem
What is inflation again
>the universe needs this certain peramiter to look this way
Thats like saying whats the odds that this piece of plastic fits its mold, the universe has had its laws and devolped with them not with a preconceived image of the universe and set the laws to fit. You are purposely trying to shoehorn in a creator
why do you post this bait thread all day you colossal faggot
>Derp
yes, I take it by ultimately by faith because I am not a biologist and I dont pretend to understand the reasoning or proofs behind the theory, it is a theory that fits my worldview and explains a wide variaty of phenomena like for example why humans are similar to dogs but even more similar to monkeys(why life resembles other life in different degrees in general), perhaps it is wrong to accept the paradigm of your time, but perhaps it is also wrong to oppose it just for the sake of being contrarian without having any serious alternative to put on the table
Also, whats the point in debating biology with people you are not certain they understand biology?, as I said, if it is evolution what matters to you you could spend this same hours doing some hard serious study instead of debating strangers on Sup Forums, we are not scientists, even if we convinced you to believe in evolution it wouldnt be because of us being right but of us being more persuasive
It's pretty obvious from my post that I don't subscribe to Stirner's philosophy.
Surely you didn't simply reply to the picture you saw without actually reading?
>denying extensive research to where any more investigation on this topic would be superfluous is considered "red-pilling"
>posts a news article that has little to no relevancy in supporting that denying evolution despite all the evidence is logical
The news article you've posted is just sharing the discovery of an ancestor to many multi-cellular lifeforms.
>Why are people so willing to question the government/elite on multiculturalism, sexuality, etc. but so blindly go along with them on mankind's origins?
Because the origin of mankind is something told to you, it's backed up by research. We don't go by what biologist say with just their word. What do you think peer-reviewed means? Why do you pretend that it's just all a conspiracy and you're being lied to? Why are you pretending that scientists that do lie are not found out and discredited?
I'm not even religious
I just feel like there's something extremely arrogant (and vaguely racist) about assuming that 99% of human civilization was fundamentally wrong about our origins, and it was a white guy with a beard who finally got it right.
To reject intelligent design, you have to make a very unintuitive assumption about the nature of human reason; You have to assume that; not only has every culture, every civilization, every scientific discipline in history (up to 19th century Britain) been wrong; but that they have been wrong in the same exact way. Which, of course, is unprecedented, for how is it possible that over tens of thousands of years, hundreds of millions of people all asked the same question, and found the same wrong answer? It would be like if all of human history thought that 2+2=5 and we only just recently discovered that it's 4.
>Geocentrism was once considered scientific fact
It never was considered scientific fact even before the invention of the scientific method. Anything pre-Enlightenment was never defined as scientific fact like science is now. For fucks sake geocentrism was disproven in the time of Galileo.
I have a personality disorder and I see myself in 10 years much like him. I am afraid of this but as it stands I have all of the negative side effects and symptoms of being a paranoid schizophrenic with no safety net of not knowing how crazy I am. So I burdened with knowing I have crazy thoughts instead of just going with it.
I would rather be a nigger transsexual amputee than have a schizophrenic disorder but because I'm a white cisgender male with PTSD and a schizophrenic disorder, I'm basically going to be crucified.
>how did life learn to replicate
Loaded question, self replication isn't something learned it's just chemistry. Do elements learn alpha decay? Fucking retard
>I just feel like there's something extremely arrogant (and vaguely racist) about assuming that 99% of human civilization was fundamentally wrong about our origins, and it was a white guy with a beard who finally got it right.
99% of human civilization was wrong about everything and still is, also you are adopting a judeochristiancentric point of view by assuming that inteligent design is shared by all cultures, I please ask you to stop being so arrogant and racist and study other cultures to understand that not all creation myths fall under the abrahamic paradigm, if you refuse and continue to imply that all cultures in human history have embraced intelligent design I will be forced to respectfully ask you to leave
>endosymbiotic theory
This doesn't explain the actual mechanisms in which the organelles developed.
>light sensitive cells provide evolutionary advantage
That doesn't explain how those cells developed. It's like me saying I'd have an advantage if my dick was 8 inches, even though it's not.
>sight-related cell functions
Again, that doesn't explain the mechanisms that supposedly brought this about. You're only postulating.
>sexual reproduction is highly advantageous
But how would that evolve? Again, you're not talking about the actual mechanisms, you're just offering reasons something being better. That's like me saying that Toyotas are better than Hondas and concluding that Toyotas evolved from Hondas.
>life replicating
You start with the assumption that life learned to replicate and use it as proof of life learning to replicate. That's called circular reasoning. Also, again, you're offering rationale without showing any process that brought it about.
>99% of humanity was wrong
Well if 99% of humanity is just spouting off that 2+2=5 without anyone actually going out of their way to verify it that's the result you get. Why was 99% of humanity wrong? Because of ignorance. I think it's pretty fucking selfish to not care about the truth, and force others to live in your own delusion. Are you seriously asking how 99% of mankind has been wrong along about medicine? Because that a perfect analogy
>Sexual reproduction is highly advantageous because it allows for greater genetic diversity in a population
How would it evolve by chance, though?
What are the odds of a species developing penises -and- vaginas simultaneously? We are told that evolution happens very gradually, but how can you have varying gradations of penises and vaginas, organs which -- by their very nature -- must have very similar sizes and shapes?
>tfw muslims are more redpilled on evolution than the west
b-based mudslimes?
>you are adopting a judeochristiancentric point of view by assuming that inteligent design is shared by all cultures
Every culture in history has believed that the Earth and everything on it was created by some intelligent force. They didn't all call it "God", but they all follow that basic format. Egyptians believed we were created by Ra, the Norse believed we were created by Odin, Indians believe we were created by Brahma, the Japanese believe we were created by Amaterasu, and certain Native American groups believed we were created by a "Great Spirit." There has never been a religion that says we evolved.
>What are the odds of a species developing penises -and- vaginas simultaneously
You do realize there are fucking plants that reproduce sexually
are you implying that 99% of humanity was wrong when they held that illness was caused by evil spirits?, wow, so arrogant and racist
>How would it evolve by chance, though?
trial and error
>What are the odds of a species developing penises -and- vaginas simultaneously?
about 13%
>We are told that evolution happens very gradually, but how can you have varying gradations of penises and vaginas, organs which -- by their very nature -- must have very similar sizes and shapes?
yes
Because religion doesn't care about the truth. All it does is provide an answer
Majority of Muslims and Jews believe in (((evolution))), that should be an ENORMOUS red flag.
>publish asomething and get a nobel prize for it that doesnt align with public opinion
>2k15+2
"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”
-Professor Michael Behe on cross-examination during the Kitzmiller v Dover trial
>Every culture in history has believed that the Earth and everything on it was created by some intelligent force.
absolutely wrong, you obviously dont understand none of the religions you have listed, you just picked a series of names of god and supposed that the other person was as ignorant as you and would take it as given. To just give you one example, the viking universe is not created by Odin, this is a blatant lie that just proves how untrustworthy your opinions must be and how little have you researched this topics, to learn more about viking cosmology just fucking google it
I know of plenty of religions that dont involve intelligent desing, just to name two: jainism and buddhism, eventough most "primitive" religions, explain the creation of the universe as a natural cyclical process, not a rational choice by some God with capital letter.
As I said, you are an ignorant racist and should leave this board until you have learned more about other cultures
>inflation period
You realize that this was made up to try and solve the problems, right? It literally says on the Wikipedia page that the Horizon problem was one of the justifications for developing the inflation theory.
That's not science. Science is working with observed phenomena and developing theories based off that, not making up phenomena to justify your hypothesis.
>you are purposely trying to shoehorn in a creator
When even atheists admit that this value points toward fine-tuning (i.e. something to tune it) it's not just me pushing it.
Also, this isn't just a matter of the universe's current shape. Under the Big Bang model, the universe would have either collapsed back in on itself or expanded too quickly for complex structures (galaxies, stars, etc) to form
Evolution has been reconstructed using chickens in a lab.
I miss that user with a biology doctorate. Obviously his work isn't finished
Nah some muslims believe in the big bang because of shit in their book but are against evolution.
I mean you can look up news articles, forums, even youtube videos where muslims argue against teaching the unproven theory of evolution.
If they weren't generally brown and with an accent then you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart from chrisatians who battle against evoluton being taught in the west.
They evolved penis and vagina by chance , and also the instinct to fuck .
>mfw
>Under the Big Bang model, the universe would have either collapsed back in on itself or expanded too quickly for complex structures
According to whom?
That creature has a neocortex, mammals have a neocortex because we share similar DNA in the tree of evolution, and that includes humans. Sorry pal, you're full of more shit than a sewer. Your monotheist religion was started by Jews. Kek
>(((Kitzmiller)))
>To just give you one example, the viking universe is not created by Odin
I didn't say the universe was created by Odin. I said "we" (as in, the human race; I assume you are human?) were created by Odin.
Or, more accurately, we were created by the brothers Odin, Vili, and Ve (hey look at that, a trinity of gods!)
Yes, the Norse religion did (and still does) support intelligent design.
Why do threads like this still exist on the internet when we have the bogdanoffs