how can liberals say they believe in evolution but at the same time push for things like homosexuality and transgender-ism?
homos and trannies are weak and were killing themselves as they should.
the poor and stupid are also kept alive by liberal policies and charity..
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
google.de
cambridge.org
academic.oup.com
nature.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The likelihood of someone being gay increases with more older siblings so homosexuality might be related to population control. Basically another straight individual could make the tribe too big and lead to infighting or starvation while a fag is an extra hunter gatherer helping to feed his nephews.
One accepts a scientific theory because it is very well confirmed and highly explanatory - indeed it is so well confirmed that we can confidently say that evolution is a fact
This has no necessary direct bearing on one's social mores
you have to add on a load of moral assumptions to suggest that accepting the facts of evolution requires you to make certain moral or behavioral judgments.
I do not know anyone who is "pushing for" homosexuality or transgenderism - I do not know anyone who says we should all be gay or transgender, or that indeed anyone "should be" those things.
what people are "pushing for" is that gays and cross dressers should not be beaten to death on the streets or even spat on.
this has nothing to do with believing the evolutionary theory, just with being a decent human being, not a nasty little closet fag.
b8
Evolution isn't proven
>I do not know anyone who is "pushing for" homosexuality or transgenderism - I do not know anyone who says we should all be gay or transgender, or that indeed anyone "should be" those things.
bait
>bait
Yes, your post.
it is better proven than gravity.
really.
better proven than the theory of electricity
better proven than quantum mechanics which is used every day to run the internet.
no theory is ever fully proven, but evolution is embedded in the way that all of modern medicine, biology and zoology works. It is embedded in gene theory, it is embedded in a great deal of computer science.
if it is wrong then it will need a huge revolution in science - you need something that replaces it and explains all of our understanding of biology - not just tweaks it, but utterly wipes it out and replaces it.
this is so far beyond likely that I am happy to say it is factual.
why don't you? What special knowledge do you have that suggests it is in any doubt at all?
Western society has been based on liberal policies such as working together and helping each other for thousands of years, deal with it
biology is fucking awesome
name me some person you know personally who says we should all be gay? or all transgender.
name me one person who has been accurately reported as saying that (who is demonstrably serious about the idea and not demonstrably insane) I doubt you can, but if you do, - source it.
I do not know a single person who says that.
this is not bait it is just reality
So why does bacteria become resistant to antibiotics after a while?
the devil does that to make you think its evolution
Not all the bacteria are killed. The ones which survive learn.
evolution is real
we only have a missing link in the human evolution, so the human evolution isn't proven entirely, but very likely
If evolution is real and the strong survive and the weak evolve to better arm themselves then why don't prey animals grow horns or some shit to better fend off predators
what do you mean by "learn"
because they push evolution as a real mechanism with explanatory value that accounts for the changes of live on Earth on geologic timescales - not as an organizing principle that dictates behavior in the modern society
they do. Or they run faster, or they hide better, or they develop camoflage, or they develop group behaviours that help them survive.
you think antelope run that fast for fun? rhinoceros got that size and shape for kicks?
of course they do this.
because evolution is very slow, your kids dont suddenly grow horns
you run away to stay alive, and then your fastest kids will survive after you.
the predator will evolve to run faster because you ( the food) runs faster each generation.
and thats how the lion gazelle relationship forms
Leftists are the new creationists.
We keep finding the missing link, but that creates another missing link between the new finding and the earliest homo sapiens.
niggers are the "missing" link
...
No they're not. Evolution never just stops. Niggers are a different branch, evolved to live a different lifestyle in a different environment.
>conveniently ignores all prey animals having fucking horns and powerful legs
>believe in evolution
Evolution is a well-documented, well-established theory, like the theory of gravity. You don't "believe" it like you would religious nonsense. You accept it like you would any other fact.
>push for things like homosexuality and transgender-ism
It would be a distortion - a logical fallacy - to suggest homsexualtiy or transgender is being "pushed" by liberals, People are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't disturb the peace, and the liberals are strong supporters of constitutional protections for our rights and freedoms.
>the poor and stupid are also kept alive by liberal policies and charity
OP should thank a liberal for allowing his poor stupid ass to post here.
>the liberals are strong supporters of constitutional protections for our rights and freedoms.
1/10 for the reply
>Evolution is a well-documented, well-established theory, like the theory of gravity. You don't "believe" it like you would religious nonsense. You accept it like you would any other fact.
This is true. I agree.
>It would be a distortion - a logical fallacy - to suggest homsexualtiy or transgender is being "pushed" by liberals, People are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't disturb the peace, and the liberals are strong supporters of constitutional protections for our rights and freedoms.
Sodomy and other degenerate behaviors are being pushed by the J-Left to destroy western civilization. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.
Liberals probably think gays and trannies are our next evolution or some shit.
Thank god some of you fuckers at least know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory
homo/bisexuality/transgenderism exists in various different species. Its not completely unnatural.
this, fags increase the adult per child ratio which leads to more time, effort and resources per child which increases the chance of the children making it to maturity.
Fags are basically nature's nannies.
Leftists are actually deeply uncomfortable with the idea of evolution by natural selection. For example many editions of 'On the Origin of Species' simply omit the 'By means of natural selection' part of the title.
Attributing any human trait to natural selection is almost a faux pas in a many Leftist circles, and the burden of proof is extremely high.
oh and the entire field of 'sociobiology' or 'evolutionary psychology' is often dismissed wholesale, they can't fucking stand it.
>evolution isn't proven
It's the entire basis for racial realism you fucking retard.
Because atheists are retards
You can't be this retarded, holy shit. You can actually see gravity happen constantly where as evolition has never been seen.
Because they are science deniers. The J-Left always tried to downplay the epistemic value of science. E.g.: (((Thomas Kuhn)))
Explain the exact mechanism of gravity.
>Sodomy and other degenerate behaviors
spot the totalitarian, anti freedom, brainwashed idiot.
probable in the closet self hating gay boy?
I have never seen this in all my years of teaching at university. (over twenty til I retired a couple of years ago.)
I think you are generalizing from anecdotal experience.
evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Why do you think you need a different flu shot every year?
>conflating microevolution with macroevolution
Here we go again. Natural selection is a real process that causes variations within species, but it is not an explanation for the origin of life. Also, mutations cannot add a function they can only remove a function, making mutation as an explanation for variation between organisms impossible because mutations are always deleterious.
>mutations cannot add a function
false
That nigga looks like Zachary Comstock.
Microevolution again, this is variation within the species. It does not show a change to the fundamental nature of the bacteria. If it could be demonstrated that methicillin resistance turned a bacteria into a beetle then maybe Darwinists would have an argument.
"the only science that matters is what reaffirms my beliefs"-Sup Forums
why do evolutionist biologists belive that interbreeding finches with slightly different beaks are different species because Darwin says so but all humans are the same regardless of dna evidence showing geographic and genetic isolation?
>conflating microevolution with macroevolution
they are the same thing. Only idiot creationists make that distingction
all evolution is by incremental genetic change - it is all micro.
alternatively, how come bananas and humans share huge amounts of DNA?
did they get created with the same DNA? did they accidentally evolve the same DNA as part of their species, with no cross mixing or no shared ancestry?
either explanation is, well, shall we say "implausible" and be kind?
Give me one example of a mutation adding a function that is advantageous to survival. Malaria resistance doesn't count because red blood cells are losing the ability to carry hemoglobin in that instance.
The facts of our daily experience are not the theories that explain these facts. Obviously.
You don't see gravity. You see objects falling etc. These facts are explained by classical mechanics, general relativity etc.
You also do not see evolution, but you see processes, events and facts that are explained by evolutionary biology.
But it has been, albeit on a smaller scale. When you are infested with bacteria which prove to be immune to antibiotics, that's because the cultures not adapted to it died off, leaving only the ones able to handle it to live and multiply further. One could say that "the bacterium X on average evolved to be resistant against antibiotics". Another example would be immunity to the Prion disease - a Cannibal Tribe in Papua New Guinea had many members befallen with (and dying from) said disease, but over the years some individuals with a genetic resistance against it emerged - you could say that they "evolved" to adapt to their environment better (while the ones not possessing the gene will slowly but surely die off if they don't change their habits).
Entropically impossible. Systems are all seeking a state of equillubrium, new genetic information does not arise from the elements it is composed of because it is energetically unfavorable.
Show me one example of a mutation adding new genetic information and not simply rearranging or destroying the code that already exists.
>name me some person you know personally who says we should all be gay? or all transgender
My Boy Scout troop leader
lmao drwn
you are wrong on both counts - the term 2species2 is a hotly debated one - some say the finches are not different species.
at the same time the usual criteria for a species is non compatible interbreeding or at least very rare interbreeding - so all humans are the same species, but Bonobo chimps (which are under any sensible taxonomy also Homo) are not .
basically it is not settled.
but as racism has caused some dreadful crimes in the past no one is too happy about going down that route.
the development of the eye.
mutation from flat area that reacts to light to cupped area.
or how about the development of the brain - bigger brains, more likely to survive,
or how about any function of any organism - they all evolved.
Instead of rainbow faggotculture as collective identity the 60s should have given them the nannyrole while cracking down on pedos. Our relationship with society would be so muh better and the role of homosexuals a constructive one.
>Show me one example of a mutation adding new genetic information and not simply rearranging or destroying the code that already exists.
Aquatic mammals and reptiles growing legs so they can spend more time on land and access more resources.
>Entropically impossible.
Your argument would be valid if the biosphere was a closed thermodynamic system. Since this premise is false, your argument is invalid.
this belies a misunderstanding of entropy.
the earth is not a closed system, nor is life - it gains energy from outside. the DNA in your body is being altered by cosmic rays as we speak - this is at every alteration, an entirely new arrangement - it is quibbling to say if this is "more information" or less or the same.
that change - which may be additive - is not entropically impossible.
if it was growth would be "entropically impossible"
if I move one molecule in your DNA that changes it utterly - probably not significantly, but from an "information" point of view that molecule is now in a different relation to every single other atom in the universe - how much information is this?
sorry but talk of change in "information" only makes sense if you define it tightly - and you are using it fast a loose, to say something is or is not "information" without any reason for that distinction.
TLDNR "define "Information" and we can talk.
Any insertions or a trisomy (like trisomy 21) would be an example of a mutation adding code, that or the entirety of plasmids (bacteria not bioshock) count for more or less the same thing.
It's also entropically impossible for a ton of things to happen, technically the sun doesn't get hot enough for standard fusion and you have to consider quantum tunneling. This doesn't stop the sun from shining. You're probably only considering some variables and getting an incomplete picture of modern biology and genetics.
> Heard of a physical concept but doesn't understand it
> subsequently applies it to genetics
user...
I never thought I'd see the day where I'd pop in on Sup Forums and see them unironically praising gays. This place really changed
Point out the posts "unironically praising gays", please.
>the development of the eye
Lmao are you joking? that's the greatest evidence for design there is. The structure of the eye is irreducibly complex meaning if one part is missing the entire eye has no function at all. How is that the case if all parts of the eye supposedly evolved separately.
These
Trisomy 21 adds code but it also destroys function because a human is only viable with 46 chromosomes. How would downs syndrome be advantageous to an organism's survival?
Nice pseudo-science.
I'm not praising them so much as merely explaining their benificial traits in our early hunter-gatherer life.
There's a reason hating gays and the rise of agriculture coincided. Once you had private/family property you needed male female unions to pass down the possessions in the family rather than the more 'communist' everything belongs to the tribe approach of nomadic stone age hunter-gatherers. Once the marriage became the default unit for society the niche for gays went away.
Except for the priestly caste perhaps, and just slaves and servants who don't get to reproduce.
>Show me one example of a mutation adding new genetic information and not simply rearranging or destroying the code that already exists.
rearranging code is how you get mutations, retard.
think of it like a box of legos. the legos themselves never change, but each arrangement (pirate ship, moon lander, police station) is a completely different construction. you don't have to change the things you build stuff out of to make new things. you merely have to change their order.
as it is, DNA has less building blocks than your average lego set, and yet it gives us everything we encounter in nature. chew on that for a bit.
simply untrue.
it would be an evolutionary advantage for some species to be able to detect light and shade. Photosensitive cells are everywhere in nature.
so if you have a patch of them - not a full eye - it is still functional.
there are many species like that.
now have them on a cupped surface, not a flat one - some directional sense of where the light comes from - useful, yes? also known in nature
fold that over to be a nearly closed cup - a pinhole camera, highly directional sensor.
add a thin membrane to keep out dirt, and fill it with fluid - even better.
every stage is not a full eye - but every stage is functional and useful
Octopus eyes are better than ours, so are hawks - does that mean ours are not "functional" and useless?
again you are using a word "functional" in an ill defined way that makes the argument false.
Homosexuals are evolutionary fit if they help secure the existence of their relatives, that's the evolutionary-scientific hypothesis.
What's strange is that especially scientifically minded people are arguing for medicinal progress, artificial insemination and many even think there is "right" to reproduce, all of which are in direct conflict with the logical implications of natural selection theory.
we have duplicated code suggesting we have had similar but non harmful processes in the past.
>The structure of the eye is irreducibly complex meaning if one part is missing the entire eye has no function at all. How is that the case if all parts of the eye supposedly evolved separately.
Lurk more ignoramus:
Information is a metaphysical property because it is the product of the mind. You know it exists because you can see its effects.
You wouldn't question whether information is involved in the arrangement of software code. DNA functions in the same way as code because it is the arrangement of nucleotides that determines what proteins are produced it has nothing to do with the physical properties of the nucleotides themselves.
true, disgusting.
Well I like dicks.
So there is some selfinterest involved in my stance.
Mind control
rights are not natural - they are social constructs 9which yes, in a broad sense are emergent from nature but you get the distinction) Humans have evolved to be so complex that our system has obviously conflicting functions - usually not fatally.
but that is why humans commit suicide - even if that is a non species promoting thing to do in most cases.
>he fell for the flu shot meme
Hahahahahah
>expecting logic from liberals
kek
...
The argument was for how DNA arose in the first place. You could put carbon hydrogen phosphate and nitrogen in a beaker for a billion years and it wouldn't spontaneously arrange itself into the structure of DNA.
Social processes emerge from biological processes. The genes hold culture on a leash.
You're an idiot. Photoreceptors are one of the first organs to arise evolutionarily.
Hey spurdo if evolution is real then where are all the half-species you see in Jew textbooks? Why did everything just stop evolving in the 21st century?
sorry but can you put that into English?
you seem to be saying that information is a special "thing" that exists only in the mind of the observer
so if i do not know what a gene does it contains no information.
how does this in any way help your thesis? it makes "information" utterly subjective and dependent on other knowledge - I do not think that helps you.
that or you are just using jargon without any meaning at all.
there is no metaphysical property to be found in DNA - it is a chemical molecule that replicates through chemical means - the "information" is purely a matter of chemistry, not read or understood by the gene, or the animal or plant it creates.
DNA do not emerged first. RNA which has autocatalytic properties probably came first.
en.wikipedia.org
*did not
>You could put carbon hydrogen phosphate and nitrogen
well as creationist like to say, how do you know, you have not observed that?
or as scientists would say, yeah, probably not, but that is not the conditions under which DNA came to be formed, so your argument is not very good.
and it has nothing to do with information being input to the bottle...
pretty elastic leash though. yes we all have taboos about killing and property and marriage, but apart from that culture is a bit complex and not determined by genes except within very wide limits.
Tectonic plates also are a myth. I havnt witnessed any continental shifts in my life.
>how can liberals say they believe in evolution but at the same time push for things like homosexuality and transgender-ism?
Evolution will take care of it if you don't interfere. Religious fanatics made it a far-spread disease by forcing homosexuals to marry and have children for centuries.