Any Sup Forumslacks here don't believe in evolution? I'm generally curious based on age

Any Sup Forumslacks here don't believe in evolution? I'm generally curious based on age.

strawpoll.me/15025644

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/wjaIq3fuJg8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Respect to Darwin but evolution is retarded

Explain

what

Have you ever been to turkey or in any bigger German city?

Come to the USA and you'll see a shitload of those in places like New Orleans, Detroit, LA, NYC, etc.

Well, we have proof for Microevolution i.e. small changes that happen to a species overtime in order to benefit survival chances. Essentially, we know natural selection works on a smaller scale.

But Macroevolution, the idea that Humans evolved from chimps or whatever is a bit fuzzy. The closest proof we have for that is tweaking with chicken genes in order to bring out reptile like features.

They already know how to inhibit certain proteins so say, a Chicken is born with a reptile snout or claws rather than a beak and talons. Yes, this is a thing lol.

where the fuck is the joke

>Involved Croatian tries to define me
I'm Romanian bitch! Better than you!

ur retarded bich

EXACTLY! MY VIEWS! COMMON IN ROMANIA!

The person who made this pic clearly hasn't visited my country haaha

There is not a single one of the first one
Open a fucking book

This isnt the evolutionary process. Humans share a common ancestor with other apes today.

I believe they are called. Guaraní. Bye bye!!!!

I believe that God created His creatures and they evolved naturally through life on Earth. It was intentional.

>So where are the millions of these

You'll understand once the white race goes extinct

>captcha to vote
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Carbon dating is BULLSHIT. The way it works is nonsense. The idea is you measure the carbon-14 in an item (which can be done accurately) and the rate of decay (also accurate) but we don't know how much is in the object originally.

If you see a lit candle and its 8 inches long, and burns at 1 inch per hour, how tall was it at the start?

Plus the "layers" of the earth's soil aren't real. Supposedly it took millions of years for that too happen but then how come excavated trees are found standing up?
They certainly didn't stand straight up for 100 thousand years so they could get buried like that. The soil does however divide into layers after a flood.

Finally the universe was supposedly a spinning dot before exploding in the big bang, but conservation of angular momentum should mean everything spins the same direction but they don't.

Its obvious most scientists are just Jewish shills

please be b8

The far left is much better at surviving in the jungle than anything in the right. Everything to the right of far-left survived well in savannas/flatlands. Everything on the right competed with each other and some died off. What’s left today is only the far-right. The far-left still exists (in some similar form) because its niche (the jungle) was different and it could survive without competing much against its savanna-dwelling cousins.

Then why do rainforest tribes exist?

youtu.be/wjaIq3fuJg8

>but we don't know how much is in the object originally
You don't meassure how much there is, you meassure it's proportion to C-12 present in the object.
Ther rate of decay is a physical constant, and sunlight is virtually constant along long periods of time. So the proportion of C14/C12 in the air is virtually constant across the ages, because it's the equilibrium between sunrays generating C14 and C14 decaying back. Even so, there are other complicated meassurements to account for the well understood sun cycles (these can be meassured other ways, like ozone in ice).

So you have a piece of wood or bone that absorbed carbon while growing. C14 decays into C12, but C12 is stable as fuck. So the amount of actual total carbon (14 or 12) doesn't change.
So all you need to know is how much total carbon is there to know how much of it was C14 originally.

In practical terms, you don't even care about the actual quantities, just the proportion.

So you know:
>original proportion because physics
>rate of decay because physics
>current proportions because meassurements\


nigger.

Ape-like creatures ventured into the savanna and over many millennia, they started walking upright and using tools and their morphology changed like in the pic. Some of the new species eventually returned to the jungle, now better suited to roam around on the ground because they have weapons to fight off jaguars and gorillas and other competitors. They did not likely evolve in the jungle though. The apes still mostly dominate their niche swinging around in trees and shit.

>The far-left still exists (in some similar form)

Just being technical here, it would be like this actually:
The far-left does not exist, and it's merely the concept art of some artist based on what he knows of how animals look. But very similarly-shaped animals survive. It's the same as alligators and turks: it's just a very successful geometry for their niches, but the internals, biochemistry, behaviour, probably changed greatly through the ages.


This is like asking why are there still plants with leaves.

good post

The fine black gentleman here is right. I understand it like that but I was just trying to keep things simple. Perhaps he will understand it better looking at it with your added commentary.

Haha thanks. Your pic is very well suited to this thread.

I don't know if you're trolling. But here it goes anyway: Humans, Chimpanzees, Cats, Dogs have a common ancestor. Our common ancestor with chimps is more recent than with other mammals. The chimps and humans both descent from a chimp/monkey like ancestor. So there no millions of the animal on the left. There are millions of descendants of the animal on left (and millions of humans) but not the ancestor it self. This image is misleading because you assume the ancestor of humans and chimps is a chimp as of today. This image should have a fork where apes, chimps and humans branch off of the left animal.
Also why would you expect to have transitional forms today when the selective pressure was in the past? This is like asking why there's you and your 8th cousin removed when your great-great-great-great-great grant parents aren't walking around.

I understood what you meant though with "in some similar form"

I have a "chans/an/evolution" folder

>Microevolution
idk if it falls under that, but viruses and bacteria evolve fast as fuck. A comprenhensive study of evolution is what prevents pandemics by understanding the mechanisms of bacteria.

Anyone who hasn't seen threads on Sup Forums about the new super-gonorrhea caused by degeneracy and antibiotics over-use, hasn't lurked enough.

>The closest proof we have for that is tweaking with chicken genes in order to bring out reptile like features.
There are reported cases of humans with tails, multiple nipples and two cases of reptile-hearted humans. Look up "atavism".
Because of PC reasons they are not that much discussed among humans because "atavisms" were the justification for very dark studies, social theories, a lot of racism, etc. Evolution in humans is taboo, but there is plenty on animals.


There is nothing fuzzy about "macroevolution". Of course every little mechanism is not perfectly understood, just as LITERALLY EVERY OTHER SCIENCE. Biology is mindblowingly complicated.
But it's AMPLE evident that every single mechanism, body part, etc, can be broke down as a chain of adaptations. There are very few that pose serious enigmas, just like with every other science.


>how can such complexity arise?
Because complexity begets complexity.
Eg: Sexual selection. Once an animal is capable of selecting who to mate with, BOOM, all your babbies are customized. You can literally choose how your babbies will be like by choosing your mate.
You don't need to go through the tiresome process of having huge populations starve to make natural selection work. You can literally see with your own eyes what the most fit individual is like, by seeing how healthy a potential mate is. And that's just one mechanism.

>Your heart is slightly less strong --> your dick doesn't even get up
>Slight deformity makes you wheeze --> instant social outcast

I'd like to ask evolution skeptics/deniers this: Assuming every organism reproduces with variations and some of these variations are inherited and on these varying organisms a selective pressure is applied; what prevents evolution from taking place? What prevents the divergence of a geographical separated group first into different races and after thousands of generations into different species? Or do you reject the base assumption that organisms on earth reproduce with variations or that these are inherited and selected for or against?

oh, (you)