Evolution is just a theory

>evolution is just a theory

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0
fitzinfo.wordpress.com/tag/charles-darwin/
darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf
Sup
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Evolution doesn't discredit the concept of a divine will.

what if God invented evolution?

czechm8

Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is said to be a theory. We atheists/scientists use it to confuse the religious. Darwin was a troll ahead of his time.

The simulation could have been booted up with the appearance of age

>SHOW ME A DUCK TURNING INTO A MONKEY, YOU FUCKING CANT

>the climate has changed before, therefore humans cannot affect the earth's climate

Evolution is driven by survival of the fit, right? Not necessarily the 'fittest' but basically if a trait is advantageous it will survive and be passed on.

Uunderstanding this, do you subscribe to the spontaneous mutation or slow change theory? Did the new creature come fully formed out of the old creature, or did it slowly evolve into a new creature over hundreds maybe thousands of generations?

If the former, then you need to show how this happened and give evidence for it. If the latter then you need to explain how the addition of energy consuming but non-functional organs were advantageous enough to survive for the generations required to evolve into a functioning organ.

There are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution.

>a pro-science fag being this dishonest

makes me wonder

Give me all the Wojaks you have.

>Theory means a definitive fact.

>allowing the rich to gain more money benefits everybody!

>how the addition of energy consuming but non-functional organs were advantageous enough to survive for the generations required to evolve into a functioning organ.
They weren't non functional, they always served a purpose

So the fully functional eye-ball just popped into existence? Or let's say you try doing what evolutionists usually do and say "No idiot! It was a light-sensing organ!"

Okay so there was no light sensing organ at all. But then the very next generation, there was a fully functional light sensing organ with all the necessary nerve endings and blood vessels connected. This happened by purely random genetic mutation.

Come on, dude... That is retardedly unlikely.

I said... give me ALL of the wojaks you have.

>That is retardedly unlikely.
How unlikely? Don't just say retardedly, give me a number. How do you calculate how unlikely it is?

>So the fully functional eye-ball just popped into existence?
No it didn't. Since you don't actually know how it formed why don't you watch this video instead of expecting me to teach you basic stuff?
youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0

Or let's talk about snakes. The common theory is that snakes originally had legs. They lost the legs over time so they could fit into smaller holes (this is actually the theory). Okay, so given the evolutionist principle that the original length of the legs was basically optimized already, did the new creature suddenly have no legs at all, or did it's legs shorten over generations until it had no legs? Id they shortened over time, then they become less and less optimized until they are basically just useless nubs that are still energy consuming, but no longer functional as legs. This is the creature that is supposedly more 'fit' than its progenitor.

>optimized
Optimized for a specific purpose in a specific environment. Different environments can elicit changes in selection pressure.

Fpbp

How about you do the math? I say it is metaphysically impossible, so the odds don't matter. You say the odds matter because it is metaphysically possible. So give me the odds.

O have a data-limit, so why don't you paraphrase your video instead of outsourcing your intellectual development to YouTube?

Evolution is a theory, you just don't know what a theory is.

So you are suggesting that the environment changed in perfect conjunction with the development of the snake? That the environment slowly became more and more hostile to legged creatures until it was most useful to have nubs that can't serve as legs?

That's thin. Really thin.

Light seeking cells which gradually formed a c cup, that kept expanding and expanding until it formed the eye ball with a little pinhole in the middle and the lens in order to protect that hole.

Maybe if you truly read the arguments of the opposite side (in this case, "evolutionists") of what you believe, you'll understand the theory.
This of course in the rare case you're not trolling.

And every generation with these new cells was advantageous? In what way?

>good willed something that is inevitable

I have. They usually avoid answering the question, like the evolutionists in this thread.

>did the new creature suddenly have no legs at all, or did it's legs shorten over generations until it had no legs
It can be both.

Legs could have been gradually used less and less until they were not used at all, at which point they could have radically shrank or failed to express entirely. It depends on what the niche or environment calls for.

The biggest reason for losing its legs in the first place is because it is trying to fill a new niche, which so long as it is able to get nutrients from different sources than the parent species, they are both "fit". Once it successfully integrates into the niche, legless snakes could quickly out compete the transition, eradicating the intermediate entirely.

Every generation was able to tell the direction light was coming from with higher accuracy

>my ancestors were dinosaurs and fishies RAAWR

You lack an understanding of what he means by arguing about the eye.

How would these "light sensitive" cells develop in the first place in a way which is connected to the brain to form an image. Better yet, how would two isolated points on an animal do this? To give you some perspective, an absolutely blind man isn't going to be able to tell the difference between light and dark when his eyes are missing, and simply having light sensitive cells isn't going to cut it. Having a cup in my head isn't going to give me the ability to see. While it is a fascinating theory, it skips the major question of how the mind connected to this eye to allow for any basic development in the first place.

>So you are suggesting that the environment changed in perfect conjunction with the development of the snake?
No, he's just saying that snakes occupy a different niche.

In a sense, the niche was always there. The opportunity required time for adaption though.

>but who started evolution? check mate

CHARLES DARWIN
Erasmus Darwin, the true originator of the theory of evolution, and his grandson Charles, who demonstrates a Masonic body gesture with the pointer finger over the mouth. Erasmus (1731-1802 Anno Domini), depicted here making what appears to be a Kabbalistic body gesture with his arms crossed
fitzinfo.wordpress.com/tag/charles-darwin/

Every single book about Biology or those who need the topic of Biology, like Genetics, Medicine, Physiology, etc., usually have at least one big chart in which they explain the top 5 or 10 FAQs about how "Evolution is a proven hypothesis" or something like that. I can asure you if google that then those answers will show up. By just digging in the subjects you'll find implications about Evolution in almost every single chapter.
By this point it isn't even an issue if it's real or if it's complete or else, but how the next bigger (and better) theory which supplants the Evolution will be.
I won't post the proofs it because my books are all in Spanish, and I'm procrastinating too much already.

> its only a theory so the opposite is true

But there's 0 evidence to support that other than wishful thinking by theists

There's more evidence for Jesus then evolution.

> While it is a fascinating theory, it skips the major question of how the mind connected to this eye to allow for any basic development in the first place.
I'm still not sure if I see the issue.

Going from something like a planaria to a human, we see a clear correlation between the complexity of a nervous system with relationship to an eye's visual definition. From the first moment that you've got a photocell that can chemically or electrostaticly signal surrounding cells to changes in light, you've got the means for adaptation.

> americans unironically believe this

Photoreceptors are (evolutionarily) older than brains, ya friggin dingus. They evolved in some of the earliest animals (the phyla that now have jellyfish) and were just photoreceptive cells connected to a diffuse neural net. So, to answer your question, that's how an eye evolved to connect to a brain: the sight part came first and then the neural forms that could interpret and act on the information formed aroumd the organs that received input from light.

>but it's very unlikely
>but adoptions to the environment don't happen quickly enough

The earth isn't 6000 years old. You look at evolution in the scope of billions of years, with the current surviving species only accounting for less than .1% of all lifeform that has existed.

Humans managed to intentionally breed animals and plants into looking near nowhere what they used to in only a few thousand and hundred years. Evolution is just that only much much slower and with a big random factor.

No one hasn't posted a single proof of evolution yet.

i'm gonna save all of you brainlet plebs a lot of potential embarrassment in your future social interactions with people who have fully-formed heads:

when a pleb used the word "theory" in informal discussion, it is a synonym with "guess/conjecture/hypothesis"

when scientists use the word "theory", as in homotopy theory, galois theory, etc., they are referring to an entire framework of statements/facts/observations comprising in many cases hundreds of thousands of pages of hard science. in mathematical "theories", there's nothing left to dispute except for conjectures/open questions, and once proven true wrt some axioms, it's true forever, and every theorem that is a part of that "theory" is as close to an objective fact that humanity can get, and yet the over-arching framework is still called a "theory". in other sciences, individual parts of the theory may be shown to be inaccurate, but there is no "disproving the theory" since the theory consists of literally thousands of facts/models/etc.

tl;dr when a scientist says "theory" it doesn't mean the same thing as when a pleb says it

>atheism is a religion

Got even better one
>Evolution is real
>There's one human race

>evolution is real
>therefore all of humanity evolved the exact same level of cognitive ability

it's one of my favorite memes

i mean here
darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf
if you want proof, this is proof, but i am not sure you can actually so many difficult words at once since you are US american

bump because I have a hard time with evolution, and my skepticism isn't well received in my circle of acquaintences. I would really like to have my mind changed,
But they resort so very quickly to ad-hominem and 'magic science men' that it is hardly convincing. Like many on pol, social pressure only makes me dig-in.

Here's my probing question. Regarding two related species which cannot successfully mate, the notion is that they diverged from a single lineage. So how did the first spotted mountain weasel manage to procreate? Wouldn't he just be sterile with respect to the population?

All that fucking jargon just to say it's still a theory.

jesus willed the little critter to get his socks off

>deformed brain wojack meme
>one line shitpost
this shit should be an automatic ban, it's easily as garbage and low effort as anything else in the sticky

>it's still a theory.

along with gravity, relativity, trigonometry, algebra, etc.

they're all just theories :^)

Posting Darwin's theory is not proof.

But Newton proved gravity.

You idiots always talk about animals. Animals are easy to get.

How the fuck did plants develop fruit. I get the concept of seeds spreading. Why fruit. Plants are aware of animals, so hiw do they make crack for animals

>Believes in evolution.
>1 post by this ID, hit and run shill
Coincidence? I think not.

You're pointing to Darwin's original work as proof of evolution? He came up with this before Mendel even came up with his theory of genetics. Even if he has since been proven right, this particular document is not that.

*arent

it would be in the bible

>Unironically saying this

go read again

homotopy theory consists of thousands of proved theorems.... still a "theory"
same for galois theory... still a "theory"

theories consist of theorems, i.e. proven statements

true even in non-math, though the burden of proof is changed from mathematical proof to experimental proof, which for the most well-understood theories (like evolution) consists of literally a hundred plus years worth of experimental confirmation.

A GAME THEORY

>Believes in God
>1 Post by this ID
Hit and run shill

I've now just posted more than the OP.

>A Science theory! Thanks for watching.

That isn't disputed in op's post, he's only attacking traditional, evolution denying cretards.

Evolution is a jewish lie

>unironically attempting to defend a 1 post, hit and run shill.

well fellow brainlet its not a scientific law yet.

this.

I don't really get what you're trying to say.


But with two related species who cannot procreate but share a common lineage. That lineage split off geographically once its got big enough to sustain atleast two different populations by themselves. These populations remained distant for so long, aka their gene pool never mixed, that they over time evolved different but a little subtle traits, looks, markings etc. Sooner or later their gene pool would be so distant that they cannot have offspring together.

With humans, different cultures, languages and physical appearances are the first step with split populations. Only thing is that most Caucasoids, like Mongolids and Negroids, all have gene pools more closely related to eachother than the others which is why they share closer physical (no, not skin colour by itself) appearances.

also newton clearly didn't "prove" gravity, since newtonian calculations are flat wrong and produce an error of large enough magnitude to not be suitable for use in even basic space program shit (relativistic calculations must be used instead)

that's not to say the newtonian model is in any way useless, however

A theory never becomes a law, that's not how it works you moron.

DON’T DISRESPECT ME

A scientific law is just a description of a natural phenomenon you dimwit

Animal shit generally makes good fertilizer. The first moment a seed found a way to survive the digestive tract, the benefits of getting eaten rapidly outweighed the consequences. Fruit was a natural consequence just to entice animals for both dispersion and nutrients. Hell, some seeds ONLY grow after theyve been digested.

>DON’T DISRESPECT ME
You have nothing of worth to respect so the only thing I can do is disrespect you.

Most fruit was mere shit. Humans turned it into true crack

>We atheists/scientists
As if they were interchangeable.
You're not confusing anybody, except retards. Theory to be valid needs to be supported by evidence (unlike hypothesis), but such evidence isn't 100%, they are gaps in it.

t. Theist who believes, that whether you believe in; young/old, flat/round Earth, instant creation of all species/successive coming of species through evolution; is in no way important to salvation.

BASED theist/Agnostic

>survival of the /fit/

>the DNA code was just spontaneously created all at once by accident

Unlike readily-observable adaptation within a species ("microevolution"), the evolution of one species into a different species ("macroevolution") has NEVER been observed or replicated. Despite thousands of generations of fruit flies bred in isolation, using any process available to them, scientists have never been able to create anything beyond mutated, deformed fruit flies.

Just ignore the faggots. Sadly those sacks of bricks are on all sides. The problem is when they vote or try to kill someone.
Old theory of Evolution, that written by Darwin itself, was about individuals (now mutants) evolving from populations. It has been updated to sub-populations evolving from the parent groups. So, you have to think about how a splinter group of weasels got separated from the bigger group, and after a certain number of generations they became so different from the bigger group because they didn't mated with them anymore, they had differentiated.
Do not mix the concepts of sterility of the members and how it could happen, individuals vs populations, the different kind of mutations and mutants.

>which gradually formed a c cup

DD cup evolution masterstroke.

Thank you for this. Creation types point to eyes and say that partially formed eyes would be useless for many generations and thus would not survive natural selection.

This is good, I like what you are saying. Let me expand on my question.

-Species A and B have different numbers of chromosomes and are relatively sterile
-Species A and B have a common anscestor
-Some presumed missing link was relatively sterile to the rest of its species
-So that missing link can't procreate with its species.

The only reason this thread is still up is because Americans have a hard time understanding the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.

Why?
Maybe the beginning of Genesis is meant to be taken figuratively not literally.
>inb4 Then why don't you take whole Bible figuratively?
I can't. Just as I can't take the whole Bible literally, it's a text diverse in form used.
Jesus spoke in parables, they are poems, short stories, prophecies even where you wouldn't expect them (Psalms are good example of that), etc.
All of them carrying divine truth, but most of them don't have that truth spoonfed to you.

>The only reason this thread is still up is because
The Sup Forums mods are shit.

No, you evidently don't understand.

If a species were to undergo "random mutation" such that a newborn organism was unable to reproduce with its ancestral species, in order to reproduce, it would have to encounter another organism of the opposite sex, which had coincidentally undergone the exact same random mutations.

Adaptation time that required a multitude of generations that were not suited for either niche. That's the point.

So the light sensing cells developed silmultaniously with the neural networks required to parse the information?

And how did the these light sensing cells develop themselves? What was the original cell?

Sup Forums.org/janitorapp

I am satisfied, I will let this thread die. sage.

>how could you believe in evolution the evidence isn't 100%!!!!
>oh yeah I'm a christian btw xD
VRRRRRRTTTTTT

>So how did the first spotted mountain weasel manage to procreate?
Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

In biological geography, there's a concept called "islands" which refers to any niche or environment with distinct separation from surrounding areas. In the case of the spotted mountain weasel, mountains could be an example of an island.

Let's say there's two mountains, and both of them have weasels. The weasels readily travel between both mountains and mate without any issues, when suddenly a new predator migrates into the valley in between. Suddenly, the gene flow between the two mountains is radically decreased. This allows room for speciation to occur. One mountain of weasels becomes spotted and gradually grows a new mating call while the other stays beige and takes up mating dances instead. At this point, even if the predators disappeared, the two weasels will fail to reproduce simply because they won't recognize each other's mating attempts anymore.

Granted this is a really simple example that doesn't go into the complexities of prezygotic/postzygotic factors. But it illustrates the point. The reality is that there is no "first" spotted weasel, rather, it is a population as a whole that becomes spotted.

>imagines a random magical being
>"you can't prove it doesn't exist so it's 50/50"

>implying they'd ever let someone who is pro traditional Sup Forums be a Sup Forums janitor let alone mod

Only retards who have never thought the issue through believe in Darwinian evolution.

How could a bird evolve wings? Until they could actually be used for the purpose of flying, they would simply be useless stumps. Since they would provide no evolutionary advantage, and if anything would be an awkward encumbrance, there would be no reason for that trait to persist.

>how could you believe in evolution the evidence isn't 100%!!!!
Where do I say that?