Here are the rules
Only ACTUAL arguments allowed
No argument denial such as "fossiles are fake"
GO
Evolution vs Creationism
Christopher Clark
Nathaniel Gutierrez
Checking in friendly user :D
Fossils cant be used to prove/disprove the Theory of evolution because their fossils their just rocks. None of it is observable science which is why we call it a fossil record, cuz thats all it is like a broken record it plays the same track, but the tune never changes to mean anything more than, "Hey its a fucking rock".
Jacob Morgan
Zachary Barnes
its undeniable proof of change in species
"hey look this one had X bone extra"
Ayden Wilson
>its undeniable proof of change in species
>"hey look this one had X bone extra"
Its a rock, it shows what existed, fossils do not show relation or contain any other relevant data points.
The only way we would have proof is if it was observable, if that change could be seen. We can see something similar today with the creation of the donkey through crossbreeding today.
Still its just a donkey, it didnt turn into a centaur or a dodge challenger :D
Isaac Morgan
and just for fun
prove that natural selection isnt a fact
Nicholas Hill
*cough cough* source *cough cough*
Robert Flores
so u wuz sayin...
we
*Loud rap music plays*
WUZ
*Tec-9's, and Hi-Points shooting*
DINOSAWRS?!?!!
*Rioting, and civil unrest*
Adrian Russell
Never done one of these with a board full of shills this should be fun actually.
Oliver Martinez
>prove that natural selection isnt a fact
now that is a challenge even from a master-bater perspective... that could eat up a thread on its own in a fun debate but we all know the answer in the end, reading those points though would be good fun if I took the anti-natural-selection-side :D
Dominic Peterson
Benjamin Wright
i agree , but not fully , you see , fossiles show a change
the show much more than you think
Hudson Sanders
>so u wuz sayin...
WE
>*Takes Extenze*
WUZ
>Preps Water Filter
REPTILLIANS
>Infowars clicks go through roof!
Angel Walker
>earth
>older than 20,000 years
pick one
Caleb Rivera
only ACTUAL arguments allowed
Luke Perez
>i agree , but not fully , you see , fossiles show a change
>the show much more than you think
In that sense its like looking at clouds which your right is what a good scientist does look for links. But beyond that they only show what there.
We find fossils of creatures that are tens of hundreds of millions years old, and then rarely find the same creature today, with exactly zero changes. Hence yep, its a rock.
Angel Ramirez
Charles Williams
>We find fossils of creatures that are tens of hundreds of millions years old, and then rarely find the same creature today, with exactly zero changes. Hence yep, its a rock
we are just repeting ourselves at this point , should we change the subject to something more fun?
i mean , i agree , you cant see much from certain fossiles
Michael Sanders
>we are just repeting ourselves at this point , should we change the subject to something more fun?
Werent we gonna rock some kind of religious angle going back to adam and eve and all that from the last bread?
bro noone is watching these when we could be checking our good buddy pickle rick. If you cant articulate it in a post, it isnt worth saying, always remember that.
Jacob Scott
Its fucking amazing seeing people fall into the baits so easily.
Eli Evans
oh shit you are right
look i found this image of fossiles showing change in bones *cough* from google *cough*
Grayson Jones
Isaac Gray
>look i found this image of fossiles showing change in bones *cough* from google *cough*
di-did you want me to argue for that or against it? I can go either way which pretty much anything sci related...
For: This record demonstrates changes of similarity which over time show the development of new physical characteristics.
Against: These are just bones, they show different bones, not changes in bones. If I find only 2 skulls one is a cat and the other a dog, it doesnt mean that one became the other only because its the only evidence I have.
Alexander Ross
Jace Perez
Boooo, I thought this was a gentleman thread about age of consent. I don't care about your faggy theology fantasies.
Ryan Taylor
that would prove the "common ancester" argument
and they show change between generations
Aaron Campbell
>that would prove the "common ancester" argument
Only way to prove it is to find the "missing link" not of humans but anything at all. It would have to be observable.
Lets just say that based off the time of the last extinction and the time we are at now for humans to "evolve", it seems our species oddly just gave up evolving in all of our modern recorded history of thousands of years.
Based upon the dino timefram to genetically get from then to now, hmmmm I forget exactly but it would be like one a day or a week, dam I gotta catch up on that. But genetically it seems we just stopped, got bored and nowhere in human history where DNA is possible to sample have we deviated or "evolved" one bit.
Gabriel Reyes
Degenerate.
Angel Mitchell
we dont need a "Missing link" to prove the common ancester argument
Jayden Miller
it takes tens of millions of changes based upon the theory of evolution to go from Primate to Human. Considering that changes only occur in any population through generations there is insufficient time on earth for the over 35 million changes and 100's of millions of shifts needed to get from where primates are to where humans are today even if you put the start back before the dinosaurs.
>we dont need a "Missing link" to prove the common ancester argument
Technically since its semantics, everything is your common ancestor. All made of the same elements if you take it that far, or that the DNA has among almost all species shows a high level of similarity.
When we find the triple helix we will know where were going :D Or When we perfect a single helical structure, to no structure. Simplicity is the answer to all survival and the best way to survive is with no helixes :D
Julian Allen
en.wikipedia.org
Humans haven't stopped evolving.
Sebastian Reed
While didnt read the article, Lactase is an enzyme... there are some other weird things like what uhhh RH negative blood types for example, you think they dont exist like they do, but they do!
Easton Brooks
>it takes tens of millions of changes based upon the theory of evolution to go from Primate to Human.
we share 98% of genes with primates
if you really think about it :
we have less hair
we are taller
we are weaker
we can walk on 2 legs
we have more brain volume
apart from these differences we are the same
same bones
similar skulls
similar behavior(absolutelly proven by multiple experiments)
same organs
etc
Connor Watson
shit i forgot to greentext
Kevin Nguyen
Believing in macroevolution necessitates believing in endosymbiosis which is an absolute load of crock.
Blake Brown
nice argument
explain me why endosymbiosis is "an absolute load of crock"
Benjamin Roberts
>we share 98% of genes with primates
Your not wrong user :D
There is a term for the distance between the 2 since were dealing not with a % but what that change actually is at the genetic level and its creation. That term is called "Haldanes Dilemma", as in the lack of time for say your example humans to primates to occur or any change in species to occur, say a fish to a bear for example, this includes even changes at the very mitochondrial level genetically.
Jackson Hill
Creationists are retards.
It is really simple:
evolution=(mutation + natural selection) * time
Mutations and natural selection are undeniable.
So they go for time... fossil records etc. when the physical proof is out there for anyone to see.
Just look up at night. What is hitting your eyes is light that took time to get to you. Sure, some of it took minutes to reach you but if you look with the help of some equipment you ll see light from distant galaxies that took millions of years to get to us.
Jackson White
>Your not wrong user :D
Keep in mind they compare genes, not what the genes are or what they make up, that is why humans are similar to pigs, reptiles, cats are similar to dogs, all living together, mass hysteria!!!!
(The primate thing was discovered first so is most widespread but is the same percentage wise as about a bajillion other species cuz ya know were all on earth...)
Julian Scott
anyone from that last thread want to see those neat snake morphs i breed?
Julian Jones
>evolution=(mutation + natural selection) * time
thats microevolution....
>Mutations and natural selection are undeniable.
Thats also micro-evolution.
>So they go for time... fossil records etc. when the physical proof is out there for anyone to see.
Fossil records show no changes in anything ever. That is like saying you found 2 tire tracks and the motorcycle became a car.
> Sure, some of it took minutes to reach you but if you look with the help of some equipment you ll see light from distant galaxies that took millions of years to get to us.
that sounds so comfy senpai :D
Levi Clark
How does a eukaryote engulf a prokaryote and let it live and use it as an energy source? How did it pass this on to its descendants? Why don't any eukaryotes without mitochondria exist today? How did eukaryotes produce energy for movement and reproduction without mitochondria before one somehow engulfed a prokaryote? None of it makes sense.
Ian Jones
thats a tricky one
sure , comparing genes makes everyone look similar BUT you were saying that it requires millions of years to change from primate to human , but there is evidence showing that you only need to change 2%
so you are kind of contradicting yourself(?)
Ethan Peterson
dayum, son that is some deep shit right there!!!
> but there is evidence showing that you only need to change 2%
Ahhhh I see what your saying there, that 2% is very deceptive, cuz when it comes to changes in speciation, were not talking 2% but 100% since all the markers are aligned differently which is what creates "Haldanes dilemma". Your totally right that they need to change but if you change even 1% of any species, even .0001% then you have a new species. If and when it is that possible, its gonna be a whole new world! Get ready for IRL furfags T_T
Daniel Rodriguez
> there is evidence showing that you only need to change 2%
The closest scientifically we have come theoretically is gene substitution for markers, but like even then its basically replacing same thing with similar thing such as those phosphorescent rats maybe you heard about with jellyfish traits? But to actually change anything more results in fatality 100% of the time, say like trying to create a uhhhh jelly-rat or something. So like you said those traits are possible through those similarities, but it isnt a new species, its still a rat :P