What's up with those darwin spewing faggots on this site...

What's up with those darwin spewing faggots on this site? I hear it was suposed to be a right wing site and there are literaly dozens of dipshits talking about evolution like it was a real thing. Only democrats believe in this bullshit.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk
youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=1s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but what a retarded pic.

Please just read about evolution until you understand it, then you will see why people take evolution as the leading scientific theory on speciation.

/thread desu senpai.

This, please

>only democrats believe in this

And everyone else on the planet outside of the American south and the middle east. Same with climate change.

Evolution is the most right wing theory in world history if you understand its implications

Is there actually an answer to the question that cartoon Dawkings is asking here? As far as I know all theists can do is bet assblasted when they're asked it. Makes me wonder why the artist would include such a good argument against theism in his own comic, especially without even attempting to refute it or provide a counter-argument.

>Evolution isn't a real thing, God created everything
>Whites are genetically superior because of genetics and evolution

this

>talking about evolution like it was a real thing.
It is a real thing. Theists are just assmad about evolution because it interferes with their colorful stories and whimsical fairy tales.

Agreed

The christians that denounce it ironically have a lot in common with the atheistic leftists that denounce evolution

Christ fine if you dislike Dawkins, he is a smug af cunt but if you challenge his logic which is often pretty fucking solid and grounded try it with memes that kids wouldnt go "this is fucking retarted" too

>His clay eyes and ears cant see or hear me but here I am
His clay eyes and ears cant see shit because clay doesnt see or hear shit

If the clay horse had functioning ears and eyes (as in not made of fucking clay) it would be able to see its shaper

>rejecting the entire basis of eugenics
>calls himself redpilled

>Only democrats believe in this bullshit.
Kek. Ask any democrat about human biodiversity or evolutionary psychology and see for yourself how much they """""believe""""" in evolution.

>I was t-told this would be a s-safe space :'(

And who made you, Johnny? You dumb sack of shit.

>natural selection explains abiogenesis

user, you are the retards

We have trolls, user. Lots and lots of trolls.

>muh dawkins

Watch the public debate between him and John Lennox in front of the dinosaur and watch him fidget and squirm and bluster. He has nothing. Hes a total mental midget and all it takes is a real intellectual sitting across from him to make that unmistakably clear

You and that picture are both pretty fucking stupid man.

God made evolution.
Checkmate christians and atheists.

Does Johnny have autism? He didn't really answer the question

Evolution, doesn't make a single claim about anything to do with abiogenesis


See in my post how I said "speciation" and not abiogenesis you big melt

Evolution doesn't claim and never has claimed to explain angiogenesis that's an entirely different area if biology

But yes I am the retards

Denying evolution is what reinforces the stereotype of rightwingers being inbred uneducated morons.

>Life having evolved over billions of years means that Play-dough can evolve into the shape of a pony

>Thinking that natural selection explains abiogenesis
user, I think you're the retarded one.
About 2.5 billion years of lifeless oceans is plenty of tie for random chance to do it's work and make something basic
FUCKING
BURGER
EDUCATION

*millions of years, not billions

because christfags are retarded

Atheism is philosophically correct

This is a horseshoe crab.

It has stayed practically the same for over 400 million years.

According to evolution, humans were fish 400 million years ago.

Why did the horseshoe crab stay the same, but fish evolved into humans in the same time span?

Is the horseshoe crab perfect?

>Is the horseshoe crab perfect?
Pretty much for its environment. Some fish 400 million years ago mutated and found they could survive better with different behaviours. Descendants of those fish ended up crawling onto land and becoming mammals etc.

But the fish offspring that didn't mutate continued to survive well in their environment too, and thus their offspring remained fish.

I need background on this picture

Lining up the bones of one species, and a similar looking species from a later time period, is not proof that one evolved into the other.

This is a completely unscientific claim that evolutionists use as one of their main forms of evidence.

Even if you assumed that it was true, the current fossil record could not even be 1% complete. Darwin himself said it will always remain broken.

Why and how would an asexually reproducing organism develop sexual reproduction?

Sexual reproduction is literally at least 50% less efficient, and any benefits to sexual reproduction were obviously not understood by simple creatures, and even if they were, they could not collectively just decide to evolve sexual organs and reproductive system.

The creation of sexual organs and reproductive systems is something that could never happen on accident.

Because they are stuck in the 1800's. Modern physics is proving the theory to be complete bullshit but mongoloids still cling to their Rothschild financed lie.

The man in the picture is a mathematician called N.J. Wilderberger who often posts videos on YouTube about how he doesn't believe irrational numbers exist and is trying to create a new type of mathematics without them. He's something of a meme on /sci/.

lel

>Modern physics is proving the theory to be complete bullshit
go on..

...

It lives in the exact same environment of other fish.
I fish for redfish on the florida flats. I see horseshoe crabs all the time, why are they unchanged and why did others evolve to redfish, and blue crabs andstone crabs and tarpon?

huh? why user... same environment.

because everytime a horseshoe crab offspring mutates, it ends up being less effective at surviving and producing offspring that the ones that didn't mutate.

For other fish the opposite is true.

Therefor some fish continue changing while others stay the same.

This is true, a species would have to simultaneously mutate some with penis, and some with vaginas, at the exact same time or they would die.

We are all Africans

cultural appropriation.

Sit on a cock
You'll like it
It's science

>Sexual reproduction is literally at least 50% less efficient, and any benefits to sexual reproduction were obviously not understood by simple creatures, and even if they were, they could not collectively just decide to evolve sexual organs and reproductive system.
you can't be this stupid

>We can't prove that God is real or not
>tfw they are both wrong

Nor would the force of natural selection have any reason to drive the introduction of sexual organs/reproduction.

This is something that is still unanswered by mainstream science today.

There is still no agreed upon answer among scientists as to the evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction, there is only controversial hypotheses that are not universally agreed upon by the scientific community.

For starters, a crab is not a fish. It may live in the same environment, but it occupies a different niche. Additionally, their form is so specialized that any major upheaval that made their current niche non-viable would probably lead to their extinction. They simply couldn't change fast enough to go from being a bottom-feeding scavenger to say, an open ocean predator.

>believing in endosymbiosis
>2017
evolution is a joke

If some being made the universe, why does it have to be the christian god? Historical records of other gods are much more plentiful - their existence was widely accepted and proof backing up certain parts of legends exist. Christianity's claims that sparse archeological evidence of Biblical events and questinable witness testimony backs up that they happened exactly as they exist in the Bible is the same as accepting the existence of Greek gods.
And if there is nothing supporting one particular god, if some being made the universe, why does it have to be conscious or benevolent or supernatural or even alive today? This is ignoring the idea that it was even a being and not just a phenomena.
And if we can't back up the nature of the being that created the universe, why could that being not create us with evolution as a tool? Why is there any requirement that there is an afterlife or the big bang wasn't a tool? Why not take an evidence-based approach to the nature of humanity's genesis and the origin of the universe? This approach is open to changing its entire premise. In just the previous century, we shed Newtonian physics, the ether which was thought to permeate all of space, and practically every belief about medicine. In other words, scientists were willing to throw away everything they knew. If any approach is likely to vindicate someone's beliefs in a respectable manner given enough time, it is the evidence based approach.
There is of course the desire to take that leap of faith that the creator of the universe is conscious and benevolent. I can respect this belief, as it is only really one leap of faith that allows all of my above points to fall apart, and it makes sense to journy towards the afterlife. But those with faith should respect those who take an evidence-based approach as well, as if you are correct, you will be vindicated by our journy of discovery, even if some of our current suppositions are incorrect.

This.

He's sort of the spiritual successor to Leopold Kronecker, who doubted Georg Cantor's theories about infinite sets. He also thinks 10^200 is the largest number.

He is 100% a meme.

only speciation and natural selection are real, everything else is extrapolation and not backed by fact, it requires a great deal of faith to believe in things like abiogenesis, endosymbiosis, and the evolution of sexual reproduction, yet they are taught in schools as fact

That's amazing

What school teaches abiogenesis as fact? The most we got was a throwaway paragraph about primordial soup theory.

As I said, doubtless there are mistakes. Humans are not flawless. As we gather more evidence, these beliefs will be refined, cast into doubt, or shed entirely, just as everything is. I can again accept that an outside force may have planted the seeds for life or formed our cell structure, but I don't believe any evidence is strong enough for the exact nature of this outside force.
Nor is this unique to science. The humanities, the arts, and even religious studies have been plagued by subjective beliefs for the past 50 years.

>lump of clay which will inevitably evolve into a mammalian species being compared to an idol which self-admittedly will never be anything besides clay
this is a pretty good argument for evolution, right?

related: youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk

this is the problem with many theistic people's interpretation of evolutionary processes. scientists don't have any "faith" in any of the three processes you listed, as these processes are described with the current available knowledge and are changed with new theories and information.

I don't think that a certain path of abiogenesis exists with certainty; instead, I agree with a theory which covers all paths of abiogenesis and might place more weight on a particular theory. Teaching high school students hypothetical knowledge about biology isn't a good idea I agree; however, modern high school biology curriculums usually don't include things like the things you listed because they are not based in scientific fact yet. Basic quantum physics isn't taught in introductory physics courses as a result of the same reasoning, but this doesn't mean the theory of electromagnetism can't be taught which is based in scientific fact.

Nice strawman Johnny. Now answer the actual fucking question.

>The process of evolution explains the diversity and unity of life, but an explanation about the origin
of life is less clear. Experimental models support
the idea that chemical and physical processes on primitive Earth could have produced complex molecules and very simple cells. Under laboratory
conditions, complex polymers and self-replicating molecules can assemble spontaneously; thus, the first genetic material may not have been DNA, but
short sequences of self-replicating RNA that may have served as templates for polypeptide synthesis. Protobiontic formation was most likely followed by the evolution of several primitive groups of bacteria that used various means of obtaining energy. Mutually beneficial associations among ancient bacteria are thought to have given rise to eukaryotic cells.
that's from the Advanced Placement Biology course guide, in that selection alone they discuss abiogenesis and endosymbiosis, so this speculation is being taught to children

Biggest and final nail in the evolution paradigm coffin:

youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=1s

Lets face it gents, evolution is a fucking lie.

What a progressive thread, such a christian tone.

>plagued by subjective beliefs for the past 50 years.
If we could somehow just remove the humanity...

Horseshoe crabs are blue-blooded aliens.

>an explanation about the origin of life is less clear
>could have produced complex molecules and very simple cells
the writers are clearly framing this as speculation which should not be given weight in a particular form. anyone can think about new possibilities which will help make sense of early earth conditions.

if we discover asteroid evidence which somehow conclusively proves the extra-terrestrial bacteria origin hypothesis 20 years from now, theoretical and hypothetical abiogenesis on earth knowledge would likely be disproved completely. this event would correctly be viewed by the scientists who held hypotheses about abiogenesis as a huge advance if it is 100% evidence based and factual. scientists don't cling to hypotheses/theories after factual knowledge is discovered which disproves their former ideas.

Evident because even though there are many here, none have a good answer for me.

yes, but because it's speculation it shouldn't be on the curriculum at all, the same way creationism shouldn't
plus, some teachers will still teach it as fact, since they have to teach it anyway and saying "this is what might've happened but it's really just a guess and we don't know" doesn't instill much confidence in students

is the origin of life actually taught in burger schools?

speculation (formed hypotheses) fuels scientific discovery, and the scientific process in action should definitely be correctly taught to students in order to show how hypotheses with little evidence routinely advance into soft theories and fact-based theories.

creationism only belongs in a religious course because it has no basis outside of the Bible and other religious texts. there is no advancement or scientific process concerning these ideas.

instillation of confidence isn't the point of early life conditions being considered in these text books, and instead the point is the exact opposite. evolution isn't a belief system where everything falls apart with one part of the structure becoming redundant. when a generally accepted part is disproved, the part is replaced with something else which caused the old hypothesis/theory to be disproved and new branching points emerge from this new knowledge that contain new hypotheses. The cycle continues as a self-correcting and additive process through disproved knowledge being archived as disproved.

Nice video...

>"may have"
>"may not have been"
>"could have produced"
What they teach is factually correct, tied in by what they believe to be true based on mounds of evidence. Its different from preaching the bible, a lot of its content you cant verify.

>non-sequitur argument

Asking the question demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what is being discussed, if you make strong claims about God and then ask that question you can be ignored since you have demonstrated you don't know even the basics of the subject you're making claims about.

The concept of God in the widest sense is defined as not being created, it references whatever defined everything including logic and time. Nothing created God because that's not how the concept is defined.

>God exists outside of logic
no argument there

>the definition of the concept being discussed doesn't suit my subversive political agenda
>let's redefine it so it suits better and just hurl angry insults when people call us out on our blatant dishonesty
Humans are not logical creatures, they discovered how to harness it around 500BC and went completely wild when they figured it out, resulting in universal proof, math and Christianity.

I just repeated what you said and you're all mad. lol

When Moses asked Jehovah what he should call him when he would introduce his new god in the court of the pharaoh (as gods were introduced with long, flowery conquests, dominions, ages, etc.) to distinguish Jehovah from all the other gods that enter pharaoh's court demanding tribute, Jehovah offered only one answer. "I am."

>being rightwing means you need an IQ below 30
baka desu sempai

>no argument
There can be no arguments for some things, you accept what I call blue objectively exists because you assume you know the experience of the phenomena I'm referencing, it's not based on argument or proof. You also can't make an argument that logic is true, you take it on faith because it seems useful. Everything you claim to be true knowledge derives from that act of faith.

>>no argument
I know. And your still mad. I just said what you said and you got pissed as fuck hearing your own words back to you. Liberals are funny af.

You really need to watch this video, and read his book in this post -- youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=1s

Evolution is a lie.

-->

youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=1s

Religion and science are not incompatible if you bother to try and earnestly understand both.

The only people who think there is a gap are people too closed minded to bother trying to understand.

You speak for a movement that keeps making strong claims about how things are without knowing shit about anything. I'm mad that the foundations of society are being broken down by cheap memes that feed peoples base impulses, apathy and lack of responsibility. I'm even more mad because it's my potatonigger cousin and not the typical burger spreading these subversive memes. Don't you have heresy laws in Ireland to protect against this shit?

They are literally perfect at eating literal shit off the ocean floor lol ive seen people post this same argument and its a pretty shitty one at that.

Here is the gap explained.
The Bible is TRUTH.
All truth that is true, is a reflection of this one truth.

youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=1s

bump

> ive seen people post this same argument

That was me, or someone copying me.

This isnt a rightwing site, stormfag.

I assume Sup Forums anti-evolutionists are mostly bait. Evolution is an incredible miracle, studying our history gives glimpses into our nature and the nature of God. Even if God created the universe 5 minutes ago with all the memories already in place etc, the "memories" in place still show the beauty of a divine process.

Evolution is literally adapting to environmental pressures, like climate, food availability, predators etc. So if it hasn't changed, thats because it is perfectly adapted to it's surroundings.

Well shit man whats up, also you were saying how there isnt a drive for sexual reproduction and that science hasnt found a reason for its rise. Yes there is a reason- it stems from genetic recombination. Sexual reproduction is efficent in that it allows favorable genes to be expressed in changing conditions. For example take fungi that can reproduce both asexually or sexually the reason for this development is to allow the fungal organism to produce asexually in FAVORABLE conditions. Why fix something that isnt broken? If the organisms genes are favorable there is no reason to sexually reproduce with to achieve genetic recombo. Now say a area has seen more rain then normal, the particular fungi might produce sexually in an attempt to produce offspring that can better survive to the new conditions.

Is the pic implying that god has a god? So, does every god have a god who has a god?

Evolution of life on earth can co-exist with the idea that man is 'God-made' in His image l, some thousands of years ago.

...

no it can't
Evolution is a lie

youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=1s

WHY DO YOU START THIS FUCKING BAIT THREAD EVERY DAY A HUNDRED TIMES A DAY

WHY DO RETARDS FALL FOR IT EVERY TIME

WHY DO MODS LET YOU DO IT?

It's a scientific theory. It's hard to get more real then that. Evolution is solid. There's more than enough collective facts giving us the picture of what is going on.

>hat man is 'God-made' in His image l, some thousands of years ago.

>The biosphere is a gimmedat from a communist Jew
Out

Evolution as a working theory is crumbling to dust in the face of mounting evidence about the genome and mutation rates:

youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c&t=1s

Nazis were never much religious. Christ was a jew after all.